Conversations with Nana

1.            Walk in the light even if you don’t think you deserve to.

2.            Listen for instructions.

3.            When called, say yes.

4.            Ask for obstacles to be removed if you are on a good path, and for obstacles to be placed if you are not.

5.            Look for the signs and accept their direction.

6.            Affirm the light within you. Avoid doubt.

7.            Use your light as a beacon for others.

8.            Be one with the light.

9.            Be one with all.

10.          Be one.

11.           Be.

12.           Let gratitude and love overcome you.

There is no way to explain the secret. You either get it or you don’t.

Most will think they get it. They will interpret each part from their own view and continue to live as before, assured in the interpretation. You will recognize them when they try to teach you.

Some will think they don’t get it, but they want to. They will strive to understand. They listen to many teachers. These are the seekers. Some of these will hear truth and use it. Many will remain searching.

A few will follow their paths, changing when it seems they must change, attending to their wounds until they are standing again, taking more steps, attending to wounds, healing, stepping, attending… You will know these because they will accompany you and seek to be accompanied. They will not judge or condemn you, and they will not try to make you learn their path.

All are teachers to each other.

12/29/08

While alive, Jesus taught an apocalyptic gospel – the world is soon changing, give away your possessions, and follow his example of living day-to-day, hand to mouth. Yet, some Christian churches now teach that abundance on a material level is available for the asking. The article of faith in these often evangelic models is to claim what is rightfully yours, your material inheritance from God. Role models for this in the Catholic pantheon are hard to find – most are already poor or give away any wealth they may have started with. How do the other Christians justify claiming material wealth, or, if not wealth, at least a comfortable lifestyle? Where is the teaching written? The Birds of the Fields metaphor is not about abundance, it’s about trust. The trust is not about receiving everything you want, it’s about receiving everything you need for the day. The words need (meaning basic necessities) and day (meaning today – no hoarding for tomorrow) are key to this parable.

Finally, I thought, I had cleaned out my Costa Rica church files and I could move on to something other than religion to write about. But, yesterday I had two Jehovah Witness visitors at my door, and here I am again. I don’t mind people loving and bragging about their religion – the message could just as easily be politics, sharing food recipes, or pulling out pictures of the kids or grandkids. I enjoy a good conversation where ideas are exchanged. The problem is the implied, or usually blatant, attitude that their way is the only right one.

The Witnesses must have actually listened to people like me over the years. All the bad jokes about them being obnoxious  are really from a previous era. The ones I encounter these days are polite and mild in their approach. In my twenties – that would be some forty years ago – people would hide behind the closed door and hope the Witnesses would just drift away, because if they caught you they wouldn’t let go. The advice I was given in those days was to growl or otherwise vehemently slam the door in their faces. In fact, the majority of Witnesses are locked into door-to-door and street corner solicitation in the same way desperate and unskilled people feel forced to do telephone solicitation. They believe this is the only avenue left for survival. I can only imagine that such rude behavior as door slamming and nasty remarks inspire even further their conviction that the world is a godless place and they alone are on the right path. As a personal defense, maybe they mentally align with those early Christians being served up to the lions – martyrs for the Word.

Their communication tactic seems to be to ask an innocent type question that anyone would agree with, such as, Do you think that murder is harmful to children? People want to appear nice, in spite of the door slamming advice, and some, at least, answer the question. The question is always worded in a way to solicit a ‘yes’ answer. The content is not important, of course, it’s the ‘yes’ that is so valuable – sales tactics 101. If you can start with a basic premise that everyone agrees with, and if you keep the steps small and reasonable, you very likely can lead to closure. I remember one lady at the door many years ago who was determined to save me, even after I explained (politely) that I wasn’t interested. She couldn’t seem to grasp how I would want to deny the truth once I heard it. Finally, her companion literally had  to pull her away. Somewhere back in those days of my wanting to be a kind person, I developed a tactic of my own, which I gleaned from their own dogma: “I know you are mandated to talk with me, and I know how important this message is to you. I have heard it, and I understand, and I am not interested.” There, I had sealed my fate in the eyes of God, and they were freed of any further obligation – for the time being. Witnesses keep logs and street maps, hitting the rejecting and reluctant in about three month spurts, hoping that the next time might coincide with some personal loss or disillusionment that might provide a door-opener.

Nowadays even my short I understand speech is not really necessary. Usually a simple, “I’m not interested,” is sufficient, which is too bad, in a way, because I actually am interested – not in the message (is there anywhere in the world by now that the message has not been announced?) – but in the minds of true believers, in the logic they try to follow. Once a team came (they always travel in twos) with a lady named Karen. There was something lively about her, a sparkle in her eyes usually missing in the others. She seemed to genuinely enjoy the encounter, causing me to reason, for the first time, that the flat monotones or the insincere friendliness of many of the others may not be from brainwashing so much as simple stage fright. The Witnesses don’t select their most suited, innately talented speakers; rather, everyone in the congregation is required to preach. Statistically speaking, some of them must be shy and feel exposed, wishing they could be anywhere else. Karen, on the other hand, looked like a fun person to be around, as if there was a good laugh bubbling up any moment. So, when she asked me what my beliefs were, I decided to take a chance and said, “Look, I do have thoughts about all this, and I love to talk with others about how we each believe, but the bottom line here is that you really don’t care about what I think, you are only asking that as a way to tell me about what you think.” To her credit and my astonishment, she came back with, “You’re right. I really don’t care about what you think. I just want to tell you about the truth.” At last, an honest sales person. Yay, Karen.

Another time, the team delivered up a man who actually did sales for a living. Each team has a leader. Sometimes you can clearly see the hierarchy, as in the case of a father and teen son who once came by, and sometimes the two of them may be closely matched in hours on the beat. In this case, the solemn one with the flat affect was the lead solicitor and the other young man was in the learning role, except that his enthusiasm for sales and closure got the best of him and he and I did all the talking. I learned that he and his wife had drifted into a kind of distant, dull marriage. Eventually, she became involved with the Witnesses to the point that he wanted to try them on as well. I imagine the impasse: share in her interests or lose her altogether. Now, he reported, they had common ground and a great peace and happiness in their marriage. He paused and looked at me expectantly. This was the moment of closure, where I might say how much I wanted the same. I’m sure he’d like to think that he planted some seed that day. “I’m very happy for you,” I said. “There is nothing better than sharing a mutually happy lifestyle – worshipping together, really connecting in your hearts.” I, in turn, was hoping he might see that religious compromise may not exactly equal a true heart connection. Side by side  looking forward, is not the same experience as facing and looking into each other.

He was offering his life story as witness to his truth, while I, on the other hand, employed my own sales-resistant tactic: keep it about him. He was new in his religion and may very well have been sincere, but, in general, the Witnesses’ offer  is not really coming from a fullness of heart. Each Witness wants a piece of the Kingdom of Heaven, a place and lifestyle – death style to be more specific – that soothes fears of eternal disenfranchisement. One lady in my  Costa Rican village  built several studio type cabinas on her property and thus generated income over the years. Recently she stopped newly renting to non-Witnesses and spread the word that she was looking for Witness tenants. One of her renters who eventually moved had been there many years and puzzled over the change, thinking they had gotten along well enough. But the imminent coming of the end of the world means that only Witnesses will survive the apocalypse and continue living as their reward. Perhaps the Costa Rica lady wanted Witness renters so there would be no messy dead bodies to drag off in the end. A former Witness wrote in her memoirs how she and her preaching companions would evaluate the houses they visited according to who would like to move in after the final accounting. She didn’t mention what to do with the dead non-believers, unfortunately.

They are told that preaching the Word is the only way to achieve God in eternity, and not preaching is the equivalent of going to hell. They are not interested in people really, only in collecting numbers of souls for their own sakes. The Baptist pastor in Cahuita shared his frustration that whenever someone’s poverty was a problem, the Witnesses sent the beggars and destitute to his church for free food and handouts. Once, as I was dragging myself home in the extreme and humid heat, lugging a backpack and bags of groceries, a passenger van pulled up alongside me, and a bouncy blond American girl popped out. She asked me if I spoke English. I was so hot and bedraggled, that I automatically answered, “Si.” She said they were from Kingdom Hall, the name for a Witness gathering place, and wanted to give me the word of the Lord. “Give me a ride,” I thought. But, “not interested,” was all I said.

6/14/12

As the Pastor was speaking today, teaching about how the trinity is not three different gods, several things came up for me. The idea of three in one and one as three might make sense to me if presented in simple human terms:

One can be charismatic, intuitive, strong, and confident with an ability to stand his ground during discord. He is highly intelligent with humor and a sense of whimsy. He is a teacher, and a counselor, and a coach, drawing on different aspects of how he is to fit each moment. He can be brutal when crossed, but forgiving after seeing how badly the other feels. Some people relate better to one aspect than another, and are sometimes surprised to hear him described differently by others.

The above is in the personification style and makes sense if you see God as a person of superiority – basically,  a superior human. It must have been difficult for the ancients to simply switch from the idea of many gods, each with his or her unique personality and role, to a belief in only one god. The awkwardness was addressed in two ways. On the one hand, much can be explained away through the concept of mystery, which is meant to keep God untouchable. Secondly, the ancients argued that the new one-only god required obedience, which demands a kind of blind trust.

While obeying one God only, the Christians encountered the additional burden of incorporating the idea of Jesus. Surely, the trinity takes care of some of the problem, however awkwardly at times, and any further untidy questions or doubts can be handled with a demand for belief. In order to benefit from the protection and power of God, a person must believe fully in the equality of the Trinity. If the Trinity doesn’t make sense to you, then your acts of belief and obedience become even more precious to God.

If you don’t want to obey and believe, you can use your gift of free will and turn away. However, God being the only one, there is really no place to turn. You will be stuck somewhere between annihilation and eternal suffering, depending on the particular dogma at play. The corollary here, given that failures in obedience would seem to eliminate most people, is the idea of repentance. As long as you believe, God’s capacity for forgiveness is endless, and even lapses in belief can be forgiven as long as repentance comes before death. After the crossing over, however, there are no second chances. You can only push this God so far, after all.

5/16/10

Today is May Day. The ancient ones danced around a sacred spot, or a decorated broomstick stuck upright in the ground. The Catholic Fathers gave May to the Virgin Mary to appease the people who felt they needed a female figure in their religion. Instead of dancing to Persephone, the goddess of Spring, or Astarte, Queen of Heaven, children dress up and dance to Mary, Queen of Heaven.

According to the Catholics, Mary is the Mother of Sorrows and Jesus is the suffering Christ. There is no laughter or play; it’s all very serious and scary. This is a good religion for masochists, victims, the chronically and terminally ill, the bereft, and the financially impoverished. Following the cross means suffering in the imitation of Christ. But what is the point of this extra suffering? The Catholic answer encompasses the practice of empathy and solidarity. Catholic voluntary suffering creates a kind of psychic hand holding across the globe and comforts Jesus during his ordeal.

Catholics believe that Jesus suffered and died in a one-time redemptive purchase a little over two thousand years ago. His one-time act of courage and obedience wiped out the lingering stain of Adam and Eve’s transgression, as well as human sin in general for past and future time. In other words, he died once in finite time, yet continually dies again with each new sinner. Thus the ancient rite of regenerative Spring becomes the Catholic May Day, the announcement of the hope of Easter – one more chance to sin no more.

5/1/2010

This is part of my Sunday Sermons series, where I wrote rebuttals to the Baptist preacher’s sermons while I lived in Costa Rica.

Today’s sermon was based on a reading from Isaiah, Chapter 5: 20.

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,

who put darkness for light and light for darkness,

who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Who might these woe-some people be? The pastor offered a few suggestions – “spin doctors,” for example. Having once been a sit-on-the-curb-in-a-stupor kind of alcoholic, the Pastor believes that advertisers who sell alcohol as glamorous are involved in the old bait and switch ploy. He also referred to the evil some corporations do while presenting themselves as doing good.

There are dozens of examples that can come to mind, and the Pastor touched on several in support of Isaiah. But what about the spin of religion itself? For example, one of the foundations of the Judeo-Christian religion has to do with the domination of animals, and anything non-human, to stretch the point. After God created, he gave everything to his human creations with the stipulation that they were to be in charge. Thus, we have a free mandate to tame, chain, work, wear, eat, and use experimentally. Good for humans, bad for animals, but ok because the Biblical God say we are the superiors.

Darkness and light is a bit trickier, however, because we are operating with a double meaning. Is Isaiah talking about the shadow side of evil and the light of truth and goodness, or is he just reworking an old metaphor, such as calling blue red just to be arbitrary? Is he simply repeating himself for poetry’s sake? Bitter and sweet is even more confusing to me. This sounds like the hypnotist who has you sniff ammonia and tells you its perfume, an ancient way of talking about advertising spin, such as the “good taste” of tobacco, or for that matter, of alcohol. We can play this game forever unless we define good and evil as absolutes, and then we just pick a side, depending on definitions and culture at the time.

Here is what the Pastor wrote on the board: El Psicólogo que tuerce la conducta. “The psychologist who twists conduct.” Could he be talking about me, teaching kids how not to get pregnant by learning to use a condom? Or me telling him I appreciate the teachings of Jesus, but not the Christian religion? Will the other psychologists in the church please stand up?

The second verse, “Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!” is about someone who thinks he is wise and shrewd. Maybe this means something like what the Hindu philosopher Ram Das says, “If you think you are enlightened, you probably are not.” The Pastor’s chalkboard interpretation was a direct hit: El profesor izquierdista. “The left wing professor.” If he isn’t trying to nail me, he must be operating on an unconscious level. Intellectualism and rational, critical thinking do not fit well in a fishing village church, and probably do look like the promptings of the devil. Woe to psychology in general.

10/3/2010

This is part of my Sunday Sermons series, where I wrote rebuttals to the Baptist preacher’s sermons while I lived in Costa Rica.

Recently I watched a film about the evangelist Billy Graham’s early life. In the commentary at the end, the director explained that his mission as director was to provide as much as possible a fair and accurate accounting of the arguments against being a believer, so that he might tell Billy’s story of belief as openly as possible. In the story, one of Graham’s fellow seminarians gradually grew out of being a Born Again believer and into a dedicated Atheist. His role was to present the other side and he tried his best to reason with Billy, talking about the inconsistencies and far-fetched stories in the bible.

The movie director wanted to be fair to non-believers. He listened well to what that type of person had to say. He did have a bit of a problem in trying to represent the group as a whole with only one man’s voice, however, in spite of this drawback, I appreciated the effort and felt genuinely represented – to a point. As the atheist character grew in conviction, he came to an unfortunate conclusion: the Bible is either true or false, therefore the fantastic stories, such as Jonah living inside a whale, the contradictory statements, such as Jesus bringing a sword while standing for peace, and the inaccuracy of repeated details, such as the two stories of Jesus’ birth, prove that the book is false, not of God.

In other words, the movie’s atheist character carried the same rigidity and dogmatism he learned in his Christian religion into his anti-Christian stance. He was choosing from an either/or perspective, ignoring the grays in between – pretending the grays are not even a possibility – a dualistic kind of cognition called “black and white thinking.” He claimed that he expanded his thinking, but after his initial expansion, all he was really doing was staying with the idea that there is only one God and one true religion. When that proves false, then there can’t be anything else. Or, to use the language of expansion, he couldn’t imagine that the Christian story could be used for anything but truth or lies.

According to religious scholar, Karen Armstrong, before the current age of belief and true believers, the ancients lived with the fluidity of myth. Instead of asking, “Is this story true? Did it really happen this way?” their question would have been, “What can we learn from this story? How does it’s meaning fit in our lives?” In other words, the story could be useful for itself, rather than for the accuracy of details. If you want far-fetched stories, you should read the Hindu scriptures. And yet, there is something calming and deep for me every time I read passages in the Bhagavadgita. Alcoholics Anonymous may be the only “religion” that bends with the wind in their slogan, ‘Take what works for you and leave the rest.’ To paraphrase: If an idea inspires or uplifts you, it doesn’t matter where it came from, or even how low or fallen the messenger. Use the thought to energize you rather than using your energy in pointless debate.

Billy Graham’s antagonist, the atheist character, was locked in the endless debate. But since the point of the movie was to uphold Billy, there probably wasn’t much else the writers could do. A truly expanded thinker would have merely quietly moved on, without giving the audience the fiery passion needed to match Billy. Because Billy preached to the multitudes and did not seek out debate forums, the writers would have a hard time getting in so much counter information without turning the film into a documentary.

However, the even more helpful part of the movie for me was in getting the idea – finally – about what the Christians mean by a religion of ‘faith.’ My seemingly lifelong quest has been to talk with some devote Christians and learn how they are able to put together all the inconsistencies and contradictions, not to mention the literary timeline, and still come out a Christian. I get it now.

Belief is an agreement with oneself to accept something as true. For example, one might believe in democracy, and be willing to argue for it, and maybe even physically fight to uphold its principles. Instead of discouraging the person, the flaws and inherent problems in the system become fuel in the fire of commitment. The person is even more eager to promote the system, believing that if everyone cooperated in the ideal of the belief, everything would run just fine. In this type of committed belief, the system is not questioned, rather it is the cogs in the machine that become suspect, and are seen as capable of being fixed.

Belief is an intellectual exercise. Any subsequent emotional response comes from relief in finally knowing a way, a truth, an answer. The true believer is able to accept confusions and far-fetched notions, even fantastical ones, because they are true, and therefore not to be questioned. Rather than unpeeling the onion layer by layer, the true believer accepts the entire package, papery thin skin and all. Rather than try to discover how fantasy fits into reality, his intuitive task is to do the reverse: If the unreasonable is true, then the job is to learn how reality supports fantasy. As the expression goes, “I know it is true because the Bible tells me so.” An example comes to mind in the child who is told by his parent that there are no monsters lurking about. Depending on the child’s relationship with his parent, he either accepts the improbable truth (improbable because he definitely heard or saw something sounding like a monster), or he cannot, but clings to the comforting arms of his parent anyway, willing the parent to be right. This example may sound as if religion is being trivialized, but it was Jesus himself who said we must become as little children in order to join with him.

Believing the improbable, and even impossible, creates a kind of psychological denial that provides relief, peace of mind, and even serenity. Again, as they say in Alcoholics Anonymous, “Let go and let God.” In that sense, the preacher is not offering God to the people, but belief. If only you will believe you will be saved from your own inner turmoil, doubt, fear, shame, hopelessness. Belief is the answer, wearing the mask of a god. Belief is a powerful tool. Now, after seeing the Billy movie, I no longer feel baffled by the true believer’s stalwart position in spite of reason. I get it.

3/2/11

A bumper sticker started appearing some time ago: “WWJD?” meaning What Would Jesus Do, the implication being, of course, that he is the final authority. Although it appears that this public question was devised by Christian fundamentalists, it actually was used by a more progressive group to question the use of U.S. military in foreign matters, and other incongruous actions. The implication, in this case, is that those who most closely espouse Christianity, a religion of non-violence, are the same ones who push for military involvement.

To answer the question of what Jesus would do requires an understanding of the historical Jesus and his teachings. Rather than seeking unknown information, the question presupposes that everyone already knows the answer. However an argument could be made that the Christian militarists do not know, or are somehow using an altered text.

Secondly, we must accept that Jesus had something to say and he actually said it. The words recorded in his name have been debated and questioned, but have remained generally the same through the centuries. What did Jesus say? Whether he or someone else said certain sentences or phrases is not really relevant to the question WWJD? because it is commonly accepted that they came from Jesus. Therefore, two thousand and some years later, in essence, he said them. We can only work with what we have. What we have has affected his followers as if it were true and accurate.

Finally, for the purposes of this quest, we must acknowledge that Jesus is, at the least, an important and respected voice, and, at the most, God. The supreme divinity of Jesus is considered a fact to most of the Christian world, and therefore, to understand anything, we must understand that perception as clearly as is possible. We don’t have to agree with it, just acknowledge that the believers see it as truth.

In trying to determine what Jesus would do about any modern dilemma, we need to take the words of Jesus as they are presented in the memories of the writers. The next question then becomes, What does Jesus mean? This question is for the most part going to be impossible to answer. We can’t say anything absolute here because even his followers cannot. There are as many interpretations as there are versions of Christians.

In trying to discern meaning from the words, we can apply logic, look for repetitions, rely on scholars and linguists to remind us of how things worked at the time. Ultimately, there is the potential for diverse interpretations even among the scholars, so much so that many turn to private conscience for the final answer. So regarding the military or any other moral dilemma, the question of what would Jesus do comes full circle with everyone developing their own conclusions pretty much along the same lines they originally used.

May 22, 2010

Below is part of a series of spontaneous writings that began in 2009. Each one begins with the following: “We are vast, of many voices. We speak to you of what is.”                

You ask about faith and belief:

Faith is about believing in the impossible, or the never experienced, something that one’s rational, scientific mind cannot accept as possible. Faith is acceptance in spite of the lack of evidence.

You don’t need faith to know you have a hand. You can see and feel it by your side. You are aware of its presence. You don’t need faith to believe that your hand can pick up things. You’ve seen it and felt it do that thousands of times. But, you need faith to know you no longer have a hand if your severed phantom limb causes pain to throb down into your fingers. You need faith to counter your perceived reality. You also would need faith to believe your hand can shoot out fire or lightening from your fingers because you’ve never seen or felt that happen.

Faith is intimately related to doubt. Doubt is a temporary state of forgetting faith. Doubt is merely an opposing state of mind, designed to keep balance in all things. Denial is the more problematic because it is rejection of belief in spite of the evidence.

Belief is acceptance of evidence outside of yourself that you do see or learn about. If something unbelievable happens to you, such as fire shooting from you hand, your faith in that possibility becomes replaced with belief. But if the fire never comes, you live in faith that it can or will. It is even easier for your mind to believe another’s unbelievable story, for the lack of evidence then becomes removed from your own experience. Belief is a fixed state only until something changes. When doubt occurs, you can call up faith if you do not wish to travel with the new experience.

Knowing comes from direct experience.

7/11/09

Below is part of a series of spontaneous writings that began in 2009. Each one begins with the following: “We are vast, of many voices. We speak to you of what is.”                

Our name is a thought, which you would not know, so some call us Gabriel, or Michaela, or other such names. It is all the same to us. We will come when called.

You ask who we are. We are all one. Life is all one. Some say we are a mighty force but that is only because we have to get your attention. We use the windstorms or lightening because most people do pay attention to the strong elements, but as ourselves, we are but light and thought. Even with thunder and tsunamis, we can barely get through sometimes. Your people mistakenly think we are guardian spirits, but we only observe. We are the light on the path, the voice of reason, that is all.

You ask if our existence proves there is a God. Assume nothing. God does not need proof. Angels, as you sometimes call us, only prove there are people in need of light. Your reality is what needs proving. If you are asking this question, then no answer will convince you. God lives in the experience of God.

Belief is for people’s minds. If it takes belief in order to have experience, then so be it. Some say belief without experience is called faith. Faith is like hope. It is the absence of, it is the before. Faith and Hope are based in expectation. If people want to cling to faith and hope for comfort, so be it. But divine reality is only love. There is no expectation in divine love.

Not everyone can do or think the same thing but there is room for everyone. Not everyone looks successful but everyone succeeds. Life is a series of successes, otherwise there would be no life. God is in everything and everything is the experience of God.

If people need or want rules, so be it. In darkness, people will follow the light once they become aware of it. If people want or need to keep returning to a body of substance, so be it. It is all love.

Religion is a vehicle, not an answer. But if you need answers, religion serves that purpose. God is the experience of God. Love is what people need to experience God. When you have love, you will know what God is like.