Seek and you shall find

 I am still mulling over some of the ideas that flooded my mind since reading David Hawkins' book titled "Power versus Force". 

So, for starters, I believe in the idea of "Seek and you shall find." By which, I mean that we are subject to confirmation bias. Any given action has no specific interpretation that is universal. Any event can be interpreted in many different ways. For example, if I give my child a $10 bill for running an errand for me, did I pay her for her services rendered? Did I pay enough? Too much? Should a dependent child be given money to support the family?  Isn't that part of being a member of the family? Is cash too impersonal? Is it some form of proof that I'm teaching my child responsibility and value of work? Whatever perspective you choose to see the basic act, that act will be confirmation that what you thought you observed is what happened.

If we are a reporter of events and come across a burning building caused by an arsonist, do we look for the arsonist? Do we try to understand the arsonist's motivation? Or, like Mr. Rogers' mother, do we look for the helpers? Do we focus on how people are always present to help others in their time of need? People will see, in any event, what they seek to see.

David Hawkins' book talks about a number of things, with a focus on kinesiology (the study of human movement). While the book's focus is on that study, it observed that there are, using David's phrase, "Levels of Consciousness" that people can be categorized. I spent a fair amount of time on the table listing those levels and observed a few attributes. At the lowest level, humiliation and elimination, a person views themselves in the world so low that they feel the world would be better off without them. As a person's level of consciousness increases, they go through various stages:

• "I'm not fit for society, but not so worthless I need to be eliminated."
• "I'm worth being someone's doormat."
• "I may not be a contributing member of society, but not someone to be overlooked."
• "HEY! I exist, and deserve to be recognized!"
• "I'm here. I'm normal. I don't need people to accept my existence/value."
• "I've got enough value in myself that I'm willing to trust others."
• "I see harmony in this world and can forgive others to help promote that harmony."
• "I can do more than just forgive. I can understand other people's perspective."
• "The world is beautiful in its completeness. Everyone is part of the whole."
• "There is no such thing as everyone, because there are no parts. Rather there is just ALL."

The table (summarized in this list) has a perspective the book does not address. At the lowest and highest levels, the sense of self is non-existent, while the middle, the sense of oneself's individuality is greatest. Mind you, there is a completely different view of the 'non-self' between the highest and lowest.

Okay, so what has my mind been stuck on? "seek and you shall find"... If I choose to view the world as any of the levels, I will find proof of it wherever I look. So, why don't I simply choose the highest level and see the unity without parts? I try. Unfortunately, I have developed habits over my life that makes me see other levels unless I make a conscious decision to seek the highest level.

One side effect of knowing this (Nothing is obvious to the uninformed.), is that I can see other people and their level of consciousness. It has impacted my conversations with people as I now try to talk to them in the level they see the world. This has added a layer of complexity that I had not considered before. How do I describe something when I know the other person will only interpret/perceive it in a way I do not intend? How can I, knowing what I want to communicate, say something which presumes a perspective the other person doesn't have?

Another thought process I have been having is: why do I spend my time and energy on issues that, in the greater scheme of things is not important? For example, if I believe global warming is counter productive to humanity's current way of living, what do I do? Do I stand up and encourage change: either to reduce global warming or to build solutions to adapt to it? Or, do I simply take a more "enlightened" perspective and realize it is part of the greater whole and is simply part of the big picture... Human's are only one of a series of creatures who have ruled the earth. We are not going to be the only one in the future. Be at peace with knowing that humans are not separate from the whole, but simply a piece of God's overall plan... Just an indistinguishable perspective of the oneness of all... For that matter, why should I care about who is going to run this country?

Should I pray for something?

 Under the category of "Things to Ponder" . . . 

I believe in the power of prayer. It is a great tool for communicating with the divine. It also helps me focus on what is important and gives me the motivation to move. I am forever humbled by the power of the great creator of the universe and all that is within. Prayer has power.

With that in mind, I firmly believe prayer is not a tool to acquire things. "God, give me a million dollars." and "God, make me healthy (or smart)." This is not the role of prayer. Looking at the time Jesus spent in meditation and prayer following his baptism shows that even Jesus understood prayer was not to make God do our bidding. The correct order is the other way around. Prayer and meditation is our way to understand what God wants us to do for God. When we understand that relationship, we are more able to live according to the will and message of God.

So, what should I do when someone in need asks only that I pray for them in their time of need? There is nothing else I can do for them. I do not live nearby. I do not have the skills they need to take care of them. I do not have anything for them except my thoughts.

What they need is comfort. What I need for myself is a resolution to the unknown outcome for that someone. They don't have time to waste on me and I don't want to distract them from the chores and duties they need to complete before they undergo a hardship with an unknown outcome. They will feel comforted if I pray for them. It is something I can do.

I will not lie to them and say "Yes, I will pray for you.", but then do not do so because I don't believe that is the purpose of prayer. That would be hypocrisy and worse than asking God to do my bidding. So, in the end, I will pray to the great architect of the universe and say:

Dear God. Thank you for this beautiful creation and for giving me the awareness to appreciate all that I can sense. It is with what you have done for me that I can appreciate the beauty and glory of you and your creation. While it is your design that the future will unfold in its due time, I cannot help but feel the stress of the unknown. So it is with my friend. Their future is unknown and they fear the potential consequences as they have already experienced. Help me understand what you have given me to help comfort them in their time of need. My friend is struggling with their unknown future and needs compassion that they may once again be able to focus on glorifying you.

I feel the fear and concern of my friend. Will this upcoming event turn out the same as before? Will they need to suffer again? Such thoughts pull us from our desired focus of doing God's will and living as a humble servant. For how can we look to helping others when our own selves need the help? For this, I am reminded of what Jesus taught about the lilies of the field. 

I am also reminded of the value of worry. We worry when we foresee something that could go wrong with something we care about and we are powerless to prevent or protect it. What worry tells us is that we care about that something. Be cheered by knowing that we have something we care about and what that something is. Then, like the lilies of the field, trust God to already have a plan. Be ready to live God's plan.

Thy will be done.

Sympathy, Empathy, and Compassion

 I've thought of sympathy and empathy before. Lately, I've enhanced my perspective and added compassion to the mix.

I recall, years ago, looking up 'sympathy' and 'empathy' in the dictionary and seeing them defined opposite of how I used those two words. On researching it further, I discovered different dictionaries had different views of the two words. Go look back at my thoughts from back then and you can catch up... or simply go with the following definitions:

Sympathy is the intellectual understanding of another person's plight or situation. I may have never experienced what you are experiencing or anything similar, but from what you have said or shown, I can sympathize with you. I can understand what you are going through.

Empathy is the emotional understanding of another person's plight or situation and is based on an experiential memory. I empathize with people who are going through something I have or am currently experiencing myself.

In many ways, they are interchangeable. We take the time to relate to the other person's situation. Yes, they differ based on how we are connected - by memory or intellectual description. Yet, in the end, we are connecting with the person.

Now, let's go off on a tangent. Compassion. Compassion is about having either sympathy or empathy for another person and acting on that feeling to help the person we are connecting with. Compassion is an active behavior motivated by either sympathy or empathy.

There is a huge divide between compassion and the first two emotions (sympathy and empathy). Both sympathy and empathy are inwardly focused. We may tell someone we are sympathetic, and in doing so, we are asking them to look at us and our state. These emotions are more of a "Look at me. I am the same as you." type of response. Yes, there might be a "you are not alone" element, but in the end, you're not alone because I am there with you.

Sympathy and empathy are self-focused in nature. Compassion is focused on the other person. With compassion, we use our understanding (via sympathy or empathy) to motivate ourselves to act for the good of the other person. Our role is diminished in favor of the other person's outcome and relief. With compassion, sympathy/empathy is a motivator and driver. It is not the focus.

In the end, let's be compassionate.

The Bible is a Library

 The bible is a library, and the librarian has a strong bias as to which books to put on the library shelves. It is not one book, but a collection of books. It clearly has more than one author, with some of the book's authors named in some fashion. Not everything in the bible are books. Some of the documents are letters from different writers. In the end, it is a set of written documents collected between two covers. In essence, like a library (which is a collection of documents contained within a structure), the bible is a collection housed in a binding we call the 'holy bible'.

I mentioned a librarian. In the early days, there were a number of different libraries. However, in the year 397, one librarian, with the help of that librarian's board of directors, tore down any other library so their own library would be the only one people could come to. I've always said there are two ways to climb the ladder of success. One method is to employ strength and endurance to lift oneself up each rung until reaching the top. The other method is to pull others off their ladders so you look higher up than anyone else. It seems, with all the talk of heresy and such, the "catholic" church employed the second method. While Athanasius' Festal Letter 39 defined the list of 27 acceptable books for inclusion in the canon (read: library), it took a couple councils to affirm that list. (see: the Council of Hippo in 393 and the Third Council of Carthage in 397.) 

Athanasius' list appears to be based on four general criteria.

• Apostolic authorship
• Widespread usage
• Theological consistency
• Unity with Hebrew scriptures

Let's take a look at each of them. Like many early Christian leaders, Athanasius likely considered apostolic authorship or association as an important criterion for inclusion in the canon. Books believed to have been written by apostles or those closely associated with them were highly regarded and considered authoritative. This criterion would have favored the inclusion of the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and the letters of the apostles, such as Paul, Peter, and John. It would have ignored many documents which were not making claims of apostolic authors.

It is reasonable to believe that the apostles were relatively uneducated fishermen and similar locals who lived near Jesus. To claim they became educated authors in Greek is a bit of a stretch. It is far more reasonable to assume learned people took the stories and teachings handed down to them and wrote them decades later.

"Widespread usage" needs some definition. This is widespread as defined by the librarian. A document that has widespread usage in Jerusalem may not have widespread usage in Alexandria. Athanasius was a Bishop in Egypt. While it would be reasonable that Athanasius communicated with other bishops in the roman imperial provinces of the fourth century, that interaction would be limited to similar thinking churches.

Based on the books included versus excluded, it is clear that Athanasius had a theological assumption integrated into his choices. He clearly favored Pauline theology over the teachings of James. He was strongly against anything that hinted at a pro-Arian stance. (This is reasonable considering he was exiled from his bishopric multiple times for defying Arian theology.)

By "theological consistency", it is meant that Athanasius ignored any teaching or book that did not conform to the theological story Athanasius wanted to present. The bible is not a compendium of the variations of belief seen throughout the world. Instead, it is a single view held by a collection of groups. Unfortunately, I see the subjectivity of view to be a weakness and not a strength. Considering the variety of ways people professed their faith in the newly forming religion, to say one perspective is right and all others are wrong makes it too likely that the professed perspective is not a complete and whole understanding.

Early Christian communities recognized the continuity and connection between the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the emerging Christian writings. The books that maintained a connection to the Hebrew Scriptures and demonstrated a fulfillment of the Jewish prophetic tradition were more likely to be included. This criterion would have influenced the inclusion of the Gospels and Acts, as they presented Jesus as the fulfillment of the Jewish messianic prophecies.

So, if these criteria are not met, then Athanasius did not include the writing into his "library". Was Athanasius biased? Well, he was exiled from his position on more than one occasion for having a viewpoint that did not conform to the general beliefs of the time and place. His nicname "Athanasius contra mundum," suggests he was more on his own than a representative of the general understanding held by people of the time.

So, in the end, the bible is really a library of books assembled by Athanasius as his personal viewpoint which stood in direct conflict with the general understanding of the christian theology of its day. It is intriguing that today, it is considered the inerrant word of God. How did one person's offshoot viewpoint become the only acceptable view?

Oral vs Written Tradition - A comparison

 We are told that before the written word, knowledge was maintained using an oral tradition. The emphasis we are being persuaded to believe is that before the written word, there were oral historians who carefully remembered and transmitted that knowledge to the next generation flawlessly. Was the oral tradition better than the written system we have today?  Let's compare them.

Starting with the written history.  (Yes, it came later, but it is the one we know best.) For starters, there are problems with written history. The first one to come to mind is that living languages evolve. At the time a piece of history is written, it is typically written in a living language. That means that the written words evolve from the time they are created. Written history suffers another issue: translation. When the written word is translated to another living language, the meaning is modified because the two languages may have different meanings for the translated word. Lastly, the written word presumes the reader is not able to receive any further clarification than what is written, because the text does not offer the ability to clarify any questions the reader may have. If the written word doesn't address future questions, then it doesn't have the ability to respond or clarify the future reader's questions.

Which is a major strength of the oral tradition method of conveying history. If the listener (receiver) has a question, the authoritative person can clarify the message. The other side of this positive is that the person conveying the history, when asked questions that are not directly covered by what they were taught will need to provide their own interpretation to answer the question.

There is an assumption by modern people that the oral tradition was carefully taught and repeated so that nothing would change. That would require a certain level of skill in each person to stay faithful to what the person before them transmitted. Their ego would have to be removed entirely from material being transmitted. Such an ability is a learned skill which is not completely learned by anyone. It certainly would not be a skill of an ordinary person (which explains why there were "professional" story tellers in pre-literate societies.)

In the end, unless the person writing the history is present at the event and is writing then and there (such as a court stenographer), there is some degree of oral tradition in every written document. This is even more true if the writer is not a direct witness. It would seem to me that neither written or oral history is free of issues.

Now, consider the Christian Bible. The earliest known documents are presumed to be written decades after the event by someone who wasn't present for them. The written copies we have are copies of copies, involving translations.

In general, the people who witnessed the acts and words of Jesus were not professional historians. The people they told their experiences to were not trained to present the material with clarity or accuracy. Instead, it was a group of individuals independently telling their friends and people they met the exciting things they recalled (however accurately). Those people then passed the exciting parts of what they heard on to others. (Why talk about the boring stuff...  So, already we have some warping of the overall picture.) Since each person perceives what they do based on the filters they have developed, and interprets what they see based on how they filter the information that comes to them, the stories morph into things that no longer capture the whole message, but rather the various transmitter's perception of what was the exciting or newsworthy elements of the original story. Once it gets translated into other languages, more meaning is lost due to the impact of different languages not having a direct one-to-one relationship between words. Write it down in a living language and now the language departs from the original meaning to wherever the language takes it.

For example: does the word "virgin" mean "never had sex"? Can a person have anal sex and still be a virgin? Is it possible to have sex outside of marriage? Now imagine if a culture had a taboo about sex before marriage, does that mean nobody has sex before marriage? Is a taboo behavior something everyone stays away from? Now then, what if the word "virgin" simply means "a young woman before marriage." Yes, tradition and taboo suggest the virgin has never had sex, since doing so would be breaking a taboo or tradition. But can that always be true? If the word simply means young (pre-marriage), does that mean we can substitute the meaning of "young" with "never had sex"?

When we apply this idea to Mary, it is more complicated. She was betrothed when she got pregnant. Betrothal in ancient Jewish culture was a legally binding commitment preceding marriage. It involved a period of waiting and preparation before the actual marriage ceremony took place. During this period, they would often undergo various rites, rituals, and preparations, such as completing the necessary legal requirements, assembling a dowry or bride price, and making arrangements for the wedding ceremony. As a virgin, we can assume she was young. But if she is already that committed to Joseph, can we be certain she didn't have sex with Joseph? If you say you can be certain because the Bible says she was a virgin, then I would agree, she was young... period. The extra words added in were added during the oral tradition that took place over the decades.  Remember, none of the apostles (assuming they even wrote the gospels attributed to their names) were present during the nine months prior to the birth of Jesus. ... And before the death of Jesus, would his mother, Mary, admit to being sexually promiscuous prior to her marriage? (Hi... I committed taboo activities...) Even if she did, would the people relating the stories of Jesus want to say she had performed taboos that resulted in the birth of their messiah?

If I told you a story and you passed it on to another person (remember, most of the people passing stories of Jesus were not trained professional oral-tradition story tellers), would you mention the boring stuff? If you really loved me and thought I was the greatest person, would you want others to know of my faults and failures? Would you gloss over my faults to highlight the reasons you think I'm great?

I'm not sure either process, written or oral, for transmitting knowledge, is better than the other. Combine them and the quality of the story degrades significantly. It makes me wonder how well my ideas will survive the future.

Our view dictates our reaction and behaviors

 I've been reading a book titled "Power vs Force" by David R. Hawkins. The book is about applying kinesiology to consciousness. Some of the ideas presented in the book got me thinking about something I've always known: our filters dictate our responses. This book confirmed it for me and expanded on my thoughts further. It also went off in directions that didn't matter as much to me.

But, for the part that did get me thinking, I've been drawn back to it time and time again these last few weeks. As individuals, we grow up with a set of experiences and attitudes that shape how we feel about the world/god/cosmos. That, in turn, is our filter we use when we experience things. For example, if we hold a world view that everything is vindictive/evil, we are more likely to use blame to avoid punishments we assume will follow. On the other hand, if we perceive the world as wise and meaningful, we will instead look at the same event and search for the meaning behind it. The event is the same. Our reaction differs based on our basic world view.

I was listening to a person tell me how she sees herself as a vile monster, unworthy of kindness or experiencing nice things. When she sees something nice/kind, she feels that either someone screwed up and accidentally let her see it or it is the thin wrapping of a greater horror. Her response to hearing positive things said about her is to reject both the message and messenger. Since she doesn't feel she is entitled to kindness, any kindness directed at her reminds her that it wasn't intended for her. My heart and soul goes out to her, yet I cannot think of a way to get my message of love and compassion across.

I have also been listening to people lately with an ear for their emotional reaction or the thought process they seem to use. One intriguing awareness I'm discovering is that people repeat their thought patterns regularly over multiple sessions. In other words, while a given response may differ, the typical response a given person will give to any topic will be based on the same world view/filter.

So, if we can change a person's view, can we change their reaction? That's an easy yes.  How about, if we get people to force themselves to change their reaction, would it help them change their world view/filter? I bring this up because I've been told to "fake it until you make it." Can faking it (forcing oneself to respond at a different level) bring about a change in one's perspective on life?

Recall at the start of this, I noticed people respond to the same event in different ways. Those ways are based on the filters they employ which are based on the world view they perceive. So, can we change our understanding of the world by changing how we choose to react?

The 17 categories in the book are split between one neutral viewpoint and eight viewpoints that are either inwardly focused or outwardly focused. The bottom eight (inward) are various behaviors designed to avoid pain and suffering of oneself. These include things like shame, guilt, apathy, fear, anger and pride. The object of the emotion is oneself. (I'm ashamed, or I'm afraid.) Whereas the eight outwardly focus emotions tend to be focused on others: trust, acceptance, understanding, love, peace. The book also orders them from self removal on the internal side (shame and humiliation leading to elimination of oneself) through a series of "I exist, but ignore me", to "pay attention to me", and on to acceptance of others followed by forgiveness then understanding to love. And the levels of consciousness tops out at the complete removal of the concept of self (pure consciousness and enlightenment.)

So, if there are sequential levels, perhaps we can help people by changing their filters and reaction. If regret is higher up the ladder than blame, then getting someone to stop blaming other and simply regret that things are the way they are... is that some improvement? Can we make steps in the right direction without expecting someone to jump many levels at once?

Is it our right/responsibility to make those changes? Is being comfortable in one's skin good enough? What does it mean to love someone? Is helping them out of a morass that they feel comfortable and familiar with helping? Is ignorance bliss?

I think Christians got it wrong.

 After Jesus died, the apostles, and close disciples met and prayed together for many days. It's pretty clear that they struggled with the idea that their messiah was killed. It is reasonable for them to ask themselves what significance was the death of Jesus. Why did Jesus die? Why did Jesus have to die? In other words, how can we justify the death of Jesus with Jesus being the messiah to free the Jews from the yoke which held them down? If Jesus was not a true messiah, then why were we hoodwinked into following him all this time?

Not wanting to look like fools, it is reasonable for the apostles to mold testament stories to justify them and their actions. The stories they found in the prophet Joel or the words of David could have represented anything. But by applying it to their situation, the would feel vindicated for their choices.

All they had to do was apply old stories to their present situation, without regard to if they are related. This way, they could validate themselves and their time with Jesus.

How can I determine this? Why could they not have been right and I be misguided? Well, I may likely be misguided. However, me being misguided does not clear the apostles from their questioned stance. Let's look at what they did with their "justification". Take Peter's second sermon as an example. Yes, it is prophesied that God's chosen one would suffer. The Jewish people, in general, were suffering under the yoke of the Romans. The various Jews living during the captivity of them by Assyrians, Babylonians, and others suffered too. How is it that the prophesies applied to Jesus and not any of the other Jews who suffered?

At some point, someone decided that the death of Jesus is what pays for our sins. It is the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross with frees us and grants us the salvation of life eternal with God. And with that, we jumped ship, losing the message of Jesus.

You see, someone forgot to mention that in the earliest of books about God, God created mankind by taking clay (physical stuff from this world) and breathed life (a bit of the immaterial and eternal world... heaven) into each person. That means, we already have something outside the physical dimensions of space and time (call it a soul if you wish). So, unless the death of our physical body also kills the immaterial part of us (that is outside of the physical realm of time), we are already immortal. We don't have to buy our immortality as we already have it.

We don't have to pay for it either. We don't need someone else to die for that payment. Looking at the lessons Jesus taught us in Luke to give with no expectation of return. The justification is that we should behave like God who gives to all, including sinners and the unworthy. If God gives to all without expectation of anything in return, they why must Jesus have to pay for our sins with his life?

Wouldn't this all work more in line with the message of God as taught by Jesus if we simply are given the gifts of God without Jesus paying for it with his life? Humans were already given God's breath of life from the heavens. Why can we not simply say Jesus was killed because there are people in this world who are attached to their selfish egos and possessions. They had Jesus killed because Jesus taught God's message of love unconditionally. The fact Jesus was killed doesn't diminish the message. It simply points out that there are still people who refuse to listen and live by the will of God.

We cannot change others. We can change ourselves. Let others live their lives and we will do what we can to love everyone unconditionally, to encourage diversity with all the beauty that comes from it, and to be a humble servant, helping everyone without prejudice or favoritism.

The message Jesus taught is the focus of our faith, not the results of the actions of selfish people.