This blog is now seven years old which seems a good time to look back and reflect on the course it has taken since it began at the end of February 2013.
I started the blog a few months after the publication of my Meeting the Masters book, intending to develop themes from that book. Meeting the Masters was autobiographical in the sense that it was an account of my experience as a young man with spiritual beings who instructed me on the path that leads the earthly soul to God, tailored to my particular needs and deficiencies. But, given that this path is more or less the same for everyone, the teachings contained in the book had much wider application. There was nothing new in these teachings but to be told something by someone who embodies the truth of what he is saying is very different to being told that same thing by someone who may know it but has not completely interiorised it which is the case with the vast majority of spiritual teachers in this world. It makes it come alive. So I would say that my understanding of spirituality revolves around three things. Intellectual knowledge, personal intuition and faith (included as one thing) and the experience of having met and spoken to beings who are what they know. Of the three, this last is the most significant from an immediate point of view though intuition is ultimately the most important as it is that inner knowledge which will eventually transform an individual.
This first book was framed from within the context of a general spirituality though there are intimations throughout of a Christian leaning or, at least, a spiritual world view that is based on the Christian understanding of the human soul and its purpose and destiny. This is to become a creative god, a God in miniature. When I began blogging I was still writing from within that more universalist context but as time went by the figure of Christ became more and more important to me. Christ had always been the essence of what I understood by spirituality but I had not sufficiently appreciated the extent to which everything else stood in his shadow. I suppose I was still under the influence of the 20th century point of view that sees all spiritual paths as saying the same thing only in different language. But a little reflection shows that's just not true. There is, for example, a fundamental difference between the Christian goal of theosis and the Buddhist one of Nirvana even if they can look roughly similar from the outside. And the Christian God really is radically different to the Muslim one. It's the difference between love and law or God as Father and friend and God as supreme master to whom unquestioning obedience is owed.
My second book Remember the Creator was an attempt to come to terms with these ideas and demonstrate that Christ is the foundation of truth and that what he taught takes us more deeply into the mind and heart of God than anything else. His life shows us the path to follow if we would fulfil God's will for us. This is not to escape creation for an uncreated absolute of perfect stillness and peace but to transform creation and raise it up, through the medium of our own self, into the light of God. The key to this is an understanding that suffering is not a universal evil from which we need to escape but a means of spiritual redemption through transforming it by self-sacrifice in love. Other spiritual approaches talk of love because they must but it is only through the path laid out by Christ that true spiritual love can be known. Without Christ we might have a generalised sort of compassion but we would not have love.
When I began my spiritual journey I was mostly focussed on myself. I don't mean this in a bad way but my purpose was to realise truth within myself. The world was there but I didn't pay much attention to it. However, as time went by I saw that to separate oneself from the world leads to a kind of spiritual lop-sidedness. This is particularly the case now when the world has turned to evil. There has always been evil in the world but, in the Christian West at least and elsewhere too but perhaps not to the same extent, good and evil have been clearly identified. Not now. We live during a time of value inversion and at such a time any person claiming some sort of spiritual orientation must stand up for the real good, both for his own sake (if he doesn't, he will get sucked into evil as that becomes the mundane and everyday) and for the sake of anyone he might come into contact with who is looking for guidance and help - whether they know it or not. This understanding led to the writings that make up my third book, The Spiritual Crisis of Modern Man. For, make no mistake, it is a crisis we are in at the moment and there is no sign we are getting out of it. The worldly attempts to address the situation through such superficial and frankly self-indulgent things as politics or, the latest fad, action on climate change don't even begin to address the roots of the problem.
Things go round in circles or, at any rate, cycles. I am now 64 years old. I suspect that I shall eventually return to a more contemplative mode of life in preparation for leaving this world. Then I might see writing about spiritual matters as a distraction from the essential. At the moment, though, it's still a way of developing and sharing a degree of understanding.
32 comments:
William,
I have followed your blog for a while, and I think I understood what you say. I am left concluding that knowledge of buddhism lead you to have a weaker understanding of your own religion (precisely because you reject what you understand to be buddhism).
There are some factual errors in your understanding. In particular, you are wrong about the range of the adversary and wrong about the range of the being you worship, who is hailed as the creator (brahma).
Range of adversary, what do I mean by that? If you are within the range of the adversary, the adversary can do whatever he wants with you.
Range of brahma, what do I mean by that? If you are within the range of brahma, brahma can do whatever he wants with you.
And what is the range of the adversary? To the extent there is sense passion, to that extent one is within the range of the adversary?
And what is the range of brahma? To the extent there is delight in concentration, to that extent one is within the range of brahma.
I am not attempting to trick or deceive you. Indeed if you confirm and know what I just said for yourself, I expect you, with this knowledge to attain a birth in brahma realm (and thus union with brahma, which was your stated intention).
The adversary does not just appear as a being of light. He IS a being of light. That is, there are gods of the 6th realm, that do not want anyone to climb any higher. The god you worship is the god of the 7th realm. These are facts, that you can verify for yourself.
Because making a distinction between the 6th state and the 7th is hard, I will elucidate this further.
Another way to refer to the adversary is by "he who desires your welfare". It's a very sympathetic & congenial personality.
You referred to the masters as "uncompromising & demanding in their love". This is an excellent phrasing. I suggest you make a distinction between the states of "sympathetic & congenial love" & "uncompromising & demanding love".
@William, I too have found blogging - and the comments from a handful of interested readers, to be valuable in clarifying - and thereby developing - my ideas.
Another benefit is writing for an 'audience' (its size does not matter) of keen enthusiasts. For example when we were doing Albion Awakening, I could (in imagination) address you and John, and I knew I was not just posting messages into a void. This our the modern 'Inklings' equivalent - and what a difference *that* made!
In particular, blogging has a way of showing up incoherence and vagueness. Setting aside present company, some pertinent questions from WmJas over the years (and going back nearly a decade) have stuck in my mind, and forced me to reconsider assumptions - for example about the nature of 'free will' and 'time'.
I don't see how this could have happened without blogging - or at least the process would have been slower if I relied entirely upon self-criticism.
> The adversary does not just appear as a being of light. He IS a being of light. That is,
> there are gods of the 6th realm, that do not want anyone to climb any higher. The god you
> worship is the god of the 7th realm. These are facts, that you can verify for yourself.
I overcorrected with the above statement. This phrasing is more correct, and more well expounded. Gods up to the 6th realm delight in sense pleasure. And whoever delights in sense pleasure, they are under the sway of the adversary & the adversary can do with them whatever he wishes.
BSRK, I'm not sure I understood the point you are making. But if it is to say that there is a level above the Creator God which is that attained in Nirvana, I think you are mistaken. In my view it is an error of Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta to think that the Creator of form exists in form and can be restricted to such a level of being. Brahma, as you posit him, is not the same as God in Christian understanding. He may be called the Creator in Hindu thought but the way you describe him places him in the spiritual universe and God transcends the universe in all its modes and conditions.
The gods in Buddhism are created beings. They may exist in the brahma realm but they have nothing in common with God, capital G, so we can leave them aside.
I don't actually worship God. To tell the truth, I'm not even sure what worship means in the context of my spiritual approach. I love God or try to because I know I often fall short of that but i don't see him as something to be worshipped in the traditional sense because that would put him separate from me.
The adversary was a being of light but he has lost his light so he is no longer. He can appear as such though.
I know there are many beings in the spiritual universe of all sorts and kinds, good, bad and indifferent. I regard my Masters as messengers from God but not gods or anything of that nature. In my worldview there are angels and other great spiritual beings but not gods in the Hindu or Buddhist sense. I'm not sure you can take the ideas from one religion and apply them to another.
I think you are saying that my spiritual approach is restricted to the level of form whereas Buddhism transcends that. I disagree because I see reality as, at bottom, personal not impersonal but perhaps you could explain more clearly if that is not what you mean.
Yes, the same is true for me, Bruce. By setting out my thoughts I have understood them better and comments always help me to get a clearer picture too, sometimes even making me reconsider earlier ideas.
William, thanks for replying. Yes, the differences in our religion does cause difficulty in communication.
It is sensible to talk about the range of adversary, yes? That is, what is the immediate cause that makes one fall under the sway of the adversary?
Second, it is sensible to talk about the range of God, yes? That is there is an immediate cause that makes one fall under the sway of God.
Is it possible to fall under the sway of God if one does not have desire to abandon evil qualities or develop good qualities?
I would say the adversary can affect us if there is that in us which corresponds to something in him. That basically means some tendency to sin or attachment to the material world.
When you talk about the range of God you seem to be limiting God so I think you must have a different conception of God to me in mind. Of course, our idea of God can be, necessarily is, limited and that would restrict what you call our range but the limits are in us not him.
Do we develop good qualities or do they develop in us the more we learn to love God?
To what extent is the material world? "I know there are many beings in the spiritual universe of all sorts and kinds, good, bad and indifferent." Are these beings free of the adversary? Is the material world, just this very world?
Second, by range of God, I do not mean to imply limits in a conventional sense. It includes voluntary restraint by the being. I think you agree that it is necessary for a being to first have a desire for transformation, before transformation actually happens.
I agree that God plays an active role in this, but this is tangential to the point I am trying to make.
William, I live an ocean apart from you in the remote Appalachian hills of the Southern U.S. and am approaching my 71st birthday, but I feel a kinship with you as a fellow seeker. Your blog, and Bruce Charlton's, have helped me clarify my own understanding and for this, many thanks. It is perhaps worth noting that I had imagined a contemplative life such as I now lead would be more peaceful and settled. But when one is removed from distractions and trivialities, the full mystery of Creation grows larger and more immediate and the work of understanding more intense. It is good that I should know I am not so alone, a comfort to feel that there are others in this world who share the same yearnings and want to know God and Jesus Christ, whom He has sent.
I'm still not sure what the point you are trying to make is! But I think it's just a disagreement about whether the Buddhist or Christian view of reality is the higher one and that boils down to whether reality is personal or impersonal at its most fundamental root. The impersonal scenario would necessarily leave out love and beauty and goodness as having any real validity except in a relative ultimately unreal way and so it fall short of completeness. God is not pure being. He is I AM and the I comes before the AM.
Thanks edwin. I have found your comments particularly valuable and always appreciate them. We have our own little online community and that has helped me a great deal in (as I see it) growing my understanding of these holy mysteries.
As a fairly recent reader, I'd like to thank you for what you've done here, and thank also others who contribute. When thinking alone on the kind of matters discussed here, there's a sense that any 'gains' made are very elusive & fragile, and the ground underfoot might give way at any time, almost like finding that the larger part of a walk taken has been undone & the walker has lost the miles gained. The discussions here have given some form to things that were otherwise a bit tenuous, and finding a point along a route populated when you get there fixes it in realiy somehow.
Hope you delay any departure to the comtemplative life for as long as is best.
William, I am trying to explicitly avoid my own religion and work within the framework of your own. I have no issue granting the position that reality is personal, and can consistently think & practice in these terms.
If you grant that some spiritual beings that are under the sway of the adversary, It means that the ones who truly walk with God are the ones mark the boundary of the adversary's range & consistently stay on the right side of it.
Given this, it makes sense to talk about the kind of personality you are interacting with (as you are practicing). Is it a congenial & sympathetic personality or a demanding & uncompromising personality? Both appear loving at first glance.
Thanks Anon, you describe the process by which the mists clear a bit and the fragile and elusive becomes more solid very well. I'm as much a participant in that process as anyone else here.
No, the contemplative life is not for me just yet.
> God is not pure being. He is I AM and the I comes before the AM.
William, it seems that you are saying that there is state where personality has crystallized into a static character. I deny that this is possible.
There is a state which is warm and caring. A being that anchored his personality to this state
is nonetheless under the sway of the Adversary.
The shock of the transition makes one feel that the later state is impersonal. In fact, there are beings in this state too, and I posit that the master's personality is anchored here.
Exactly this is the point that I am trying to make.
If we are referring to my teachers I would say they were all of those at various times. Perhaps not congenial but the other three! But when they were demanding or uncompromising it was in regard to truth. At no time did they make demands of me personally but they expected me to make them of myself. That's fair enough, don't you think? The spiritual path is not to be taken lightly or superficially. They were working with someone who was fundamentally a bit lazy and who tended to make excuses to avoid facing up to home truths. They had to get through that barrier.
I'm sure there is such a state in which personality has crystallised into a static character but but I'm not recommending it. Growth is the nature of life. I see what you mean about the deceits of the adversary which is why we have to make sure our motives are pure. If we get caught up in the devil's lies that's because we have succumbed to his blandishments and preferred what feels good to some part of our lower self to what is true.
That's fair. Sympathetic has a wide range of meanings. If you include "will help if the person is willing to do the right thing" as sympathetic, then yes, sympathetic.
But there is another meaning of sympathetic, in the sense of "willing to extend a line of credit for a person, considering the difficulties he is under". I would not include this under the right side of the line.
A person who is anchored on the wrong side of the line would still cross over to the right side on occasion, whenever he feels ardent.
A person who is anchored on the right side of the line would still cross over to the wrong side on occasion, whenever he loses mindfulness.
The really important part is anchoring your personality at the right side of the line, so that your personality consistently moves in that direction.
If the anchor is in the wrong side of the line, then there will be some unskillful qualities that will be unabandoned & some skillful qualities that are undeveloped.
If the anchor is in the right side of the line, then it can be expected that all skillful qualities will be developed and all unskillful qualities will be abandoned.
I am tired, I think let's end this here. We come to an agreement, I think.
> I'm sure there is such a state in which personality has crystallised into a static
> character but but I'm not recommending it.
Please consider the possibility that this is simply a state where you are unable to notice the changes in personality (when in that state). You will only know for sure if you anchor yourself there, and then observe if your personality changes as life proceeds.
This is a minor point, that is not of great importance unless you consider all states that are in the correct side of the line to be impersonal.
Yes, let's end it there! Thanks for the discussion. I think we have come to a basic agreement too.
One of the most valuable online experiences I've had was on the Guardian religious forums about ten years ago. At the time I was riding high on the wave of newly found faith and to be exposed to such base rudeness and depravity actually helped me in real life. My edge was tempered to a certain degree. My writing improved also.
Of course the world has changed vastly in the short decade since then and evil now closes in at every corner. So these days I much prefer to seek out the good - and your writings radiate a goodness which is infinitely more attractive. And as Bruce mentioned, a definite spirit of the Inklings lives on within the group. All the best to you William!
Thanks for your blog, William. I have enjoyed reading it over the last few years.
Thank you Moonsphere, that's high praise indeed! I know I keep saying it but the comments here add immeasurably to the blog and make me think it is worthwhile.
Thanks Morgan. Your comments and those of others make it a communal thing which is far more rewarding than just writing into the void.
Hi,
Another lengthy comment, but mostly to confirm that you caused a change in my view, and that you are correct.
> I'm sure there is such a state in which personality has crystallised into a static
> character but but I'm not recommending it.
This is my experience. Once one enters concentration, there is some part of generated feeling that is sickly sweet. This is an indication of imperfection. As imperfections build up, this sickly sweetness builds up.
From the perspective of personality, these imperfections show up as a calcification of personality.
Furthermore, the distinction that you have made between personal/impersonal. The impersonal always sides with calcification. And as long as the personal is rightly pursued it can be seen in the here and now that calcification will not occur.
Therefore, one should always discriminate in favor the personal & not the impersonal. I did not see this as axiomatic, which is indeed an error.
I hadn't thought of it in quite those terms but you're right, the impersonal does side with calcification. That may seem to be applying concepts to do with time to eternity but I don't see eternity as obliviating time but transforming it in the same way that spirit transforms matter. I know you're not a Christian but this is demonstrated by the fact that Christ took his body into heaven. He didn't just leave it on Earth.
If the law of life is growth, it is only the person that can grow though as you say this must be pursued in the right way.
I've been reading your blog regularly for some time.
Accessible and insightful.
Keep it up!
I will! Thanks Chris.
> If the law of life is growth, it is only the person that can grow though as you say this must be pursued in the right way.
The claim that the teacher taught that there was no self is a error. You certainly won't find such a statement in the sutta's themselves.
It would be correct to say that the teacher proclaimed that there is no theory of self that is compatible with what he taught, which can be summarized as (1) the abandoning of evil (2) the culmination of the good (3) the purification of the mind.
The problem with a theory of self that says that "the self is what grows", than that self is reaching destruction by growing (as the above three goals can be achieved, both in part & in full). This makes the theory unadoptable to one who does intend to succeed in these three goals.
> That may seem to be applying concepts to do with time to eternity but I don't see eternity as obliviating time but transforming it in the same way that spirit transforms matter. I know you're not a Christian but this is demonstrated by the fact that Christ took his body into heaven. He didn't just leave it on Earth.
I can grant that form (the closest analogue to matter/body) is in a transformational relationship with nutriment (the closest analogue to spirit). I am not sure what are the analogues for time & eternity are, so if impreciseness is allowed, I can grant that too.
I know that the Buddha never actually said there is no self. He said that we are not self. However, in terms of his teaching and how it has been understood, there is no practical difference between what he did say and a doctrine of no self. I believe that he proved that we are not the phenomenal self, and I fully agree with that analysis of the human being. But there is a real self above that of which that is the distortion in the three dimensional material world. So I would maintain that there is a spiritual self which is given by God.
Christianity also denies the false self. It is that which must be given up and that which is symbolically crucified. The difference is that the real self is then known and it is fully individual.
I see the path as progressively becoming more in a multi-dimensional way but the lesser is always included in the greater, albeit in a transfigured form.j Just as the line is included in the triangle is included in the pyramid etc, and there is an etc.
> He said that we are not self.
No, he did not. There are three types of classifications but have to be seen in a different way.
1) This is one way to classify things: As what is inconstant, and is constant. The most important thing here is to see what is inconstant as inconstant & what is constant as constant. When something is categorically said to be not-self, it should be understood as something that is classified in terms of constancy. Typical examples would be: the five aggregates.
If you say that whatever is inconstant is the self, than it follows that that self is subject to dying. And there is no point in practice, because what is inconstant is remains inconstant.
If you say that whatever is constant is the self, then it follows that the self is undying. And there is no point in practice, because what is constant remains constant.
I think you agree that whatever can be called inconstant or constant should not be called the self.
2) This is another way to classify things: As what is to be cultivated & what is to be uprooted. Whatever is good in the beginning, good in the middle & good in the end is to be cultivated. Whatever is bad in the beginning, bad in the middle & bad in the end is to be uprooted. Typical examples would be: the seven awakening factors, the four unlimitables, etc.
I think you term a higher self here.
With regard to this self: "The self that cultivates what is good in the beginning, middle, & end". It follows that there is no difference between a person who is ardent, and a person who is lazy. There is no difference between the cultivated & the uncultivated. Both have the same self. Thus, this theory is to be rejected.
The theory that "The self does not cultivate what is good in the beginning, middle & end" is subject to the opposite problem. The person who is cultivating is cultivating for his own destruction.
3) This is another a third way to classify things: As what is to be trained. Whatever gets overwhelmed by feeling is what is to be trained. Typical examples would be: body, mind, spirit, etc.
I think you term a lower self here.
With regard to this self: "The self is whatever that is to be trained". Then the person who is undergoing training is reaching his own destruction. A person who trained 10% has only 90% left (Remember that the self is defined to be whatever that is to be trained).
The position "The self has nothing to do with whatever that is to be trained" has the opposite flaw. There is no difference between a person who is ardent, and a person who is lazy. There is no difference between the trained & the untrained.
It does not help to have a combination. The combination will have double the flaws.
If you can find a theory of self that does not have either of these two flaws:
(1) No difference between a run of the mill person & a noble person
(2) The noble is working for his own destruction,
Then that is an acceptable theory of self.
> But there is a real self above that of which that is the distortion in the three dimensional material world. So I would maintain that there is a spiritual self which is given by God.
What is the difference between a run of the mill person & a noble person?
You'll have to forgive me if I don't carry on with this discussion. I think the truth is essentially simple and we all too easily get lured into complexity, argument and debate which is never resolved.
> You'll have to forgive me if I don't carry on with this discussion. I think the truth is essentially simple and we all too easily get lured into complexity, argument and debate which is never resolved.
There is nothing to forgive. In fact, you are doing the right thing. To not argue "The self is X!", exactly this is the teacher's bidding.
Post a Comment