Stations of Stavros

"Are you righteous?

Kind?

Does your confidence lie in this?

Are you loved by all?

Know that I was, too.

Do you imagine your sufferings will be less

because you love

goodness?

Truth?"

The Road of the Heart

"Some of the God-fire in your heart must have rubbed off on your letter I received last evening. I read it to Baba and the look on His face was very deep. His message for you is that you are very fortunate to experience this Love and that you should, "Plunge in, unafraid."

It immediately brought to my mind something Baba told us one evening just before the accident and made us repeat it a few times. It is the lines of an Urdu couplet by a mystic poet: "Understand well this Love is no joke; it is an Ocean of Fire in which you have to plunge deep and drown yourself."

The road of the mind is narrow, and for a dnyani (seeker) it is a long journey. The road of the heart, however, has no limits and it's the most direct to God. For the dnyani there are a thousand questions to all of which the bhakti (lover) has one answer — and it is all-sufficient and satisfying."

-- Mani Irani

Thus Man Becomes God

One can find volumes and volumes of prose and poetry about love, but there are very, very few persons who have found love and experienced it. No amount of reading, listening and learning can ever tell you what love is. Regardless of how much I explain love to you, you will understand it less and less if you think you can grasp it through the intellect or imagination.

Hafiz describes the bare truth about love when he says:

Janab-e ishqra dargah basi bala tar-azaq'l ast: Kasi in astan busad kay jan der astin darad.

The majesty of love lies far beyond the reach of intellect;
only one who has his life up his sleeve dares kiss the threshold of love.

The difference between love and intellect is something like that between night and day; they exist in relation to one another and yet as two different things. Love is real intelligence capable of realizing truth; intellect is best suited to know all about duality, which is born of ignorance and is entirely ignorance. When the sun rises, night is transformed into day. Just so, when love manifests, not-knowing (ignorance) is turned into conscious-knowing (knowledge).

In spite of the difference between a keenly intelligent person and a very unintelligent person, each is equally capable of experiencing love. The quality which determines one's capacity for love is not one's wit or wisdom, but one's readiness to lay down life itself for the beloved, and yet remain alive. One must, so to speak, slough off body, energy, mind and all else, and become dust under the feet of the beloved. This dust of a lover who cannot remain alive without God — just as an ordinary man cannot live without breath — is then transformed into the beloved. Thus man becomes God.

-- Meher Baba

So be it. Svaha!

Fides et Ratio: Some Meditations

The Eucharist is the practice (symbolic and actual) of the Tantric Union of Awareness (Wine) and Matter/Energy (Bread), of Spirit and Matter, of Compassion and Wisdom, of Nirvana and Samsara, of the Everything and the Nothing.

God alone IS. God is the Everything and the Nothing. To say that God created the world ex nihilo, or "out of nothing", is to say that Everything-God created the world out of Nothing-God. The Nothing, being also God, means that the world is also God.

There is only one life: the birth into the world-separate-from-God (or "original sin") and the final liberation-salvation into God-not-different-from-the-world. But this one life has many "going-to-sleeps" (temporary deaths) and "waking-ups" (temporary births). Reincarnation is true, but it's not the final truth. Heaven-and-Hell is true, but it's not the final truth.

A Hindu experiences Infinite Love and calls it "Krishna". A Christian experiences Infinite Love and calls it "Christ". Krishna is Christ, if both are understood correctly. No, let me rephrase that: Krishna is Christ, even if both are understood incorrectly.

The doctrine of papal infallibility states that, under very restricted circumstances and conditions, the Pope, when speaking most authoritatively, cannot define doctrine errantly. Whether this is true or not, is not important. If it is true, there is no way to empirically prove it thusly. In terms of shoring up faith among certain portions of the Christian population, the doctrine may be useful and unobjectionable. The doctrine need only be duly noted, by those who find it superfluous. Indeed, some things are better left alone, until the mystic-eye opens.

Through the mystic-eye, the doctrine of papal infallibility manifests a deeper significance, a significance understood in terms of non-dualism, Advaita Christanta, and intimations of Guru-Bhakti Yoga.

The energetic practice of compassion and wisdom is the foundation. One can then be Methodist, Reform, Ismaili, Vaishnava, or Gelukpa. Communal membership need not matter. Of course, in that case, one must be prepared to enjoy the heretic's reward. Whether such reward is worth it or not, depends upon a host of conditions. But some of us are born a hairesis of one, and could not care less: we don't reject; we transform. Leave politics to the politicians. Leave patriotism to the patriots.

Christ speaks through all scriptures, saints, sages, and siddhas. Translation is the lost art.

The Two Great Problems

The two great problems facing any attempted holistic understanding of Christianity and Buddhism center on (1) birth; and (2) death.

Christianity argues that the soul is uniquely created at conception, whereas Buddhism posits that the stream of consciousness within a person is a continuation from pre-birth times.

Christianity argues that bodies and souls will be re-united after the Final Judgement, and humans will spend eternity in resurrected bodies; whereas Buddhism posits that eternity is realized in nirvana.

Both the Christian and the Buddhist position are viable, and they stress different aspects of the very same reality.

For the Christian, the "soul" is considered to be the innermost aspect of a human, and the creation of a new body at conception means that the "soul" is also created, because a new human is created. The stream of consciousness in Buddhism is the rapid appearance-existence-disappearance process of mental states. This stream of consciousness appears at conception associated with the newly conceived human -- thus, one can speak of the stream of consciousness as being "created" (by causes and conditions) at conception. Speaking thusly would not negate the reality that the stream of consciousness is karmically related to earlier parts of the stream.

As an analogy, consider a flame on candle A to be the stream of consciousness of a particular person. The flame of candle A is used to light candle B, and the candle A flame is extinguished. The flame of candle B is karmically related (literally "related by action") to the flame of candle A, and yet the flame of candle B is a new "creation" as well: the flame of candle B is both the same and yet not the same, as the flame of candle A. The flame of candle B is the new soul, newly created; and yet the flame of candle B can also be seen as the continuation of the "stream of flame" that was part of candle A.

Regarding death, the Christian vision is that you die, and then after time spent in the realm of the dead, you are resurrected bodily, and spend eternity in the body. In the Buddhist vision, you die, then you spend however long it takes in different bodies, until finally nirvana is realized, which frees you from being limited to any one body. But look closely: to be free from being limited to any one body, is to be free to be associated with all bodies. In Buddhism, the realization of nirvana means that the realizer now realizes no-difference from any body; the realizer realizes non-difference from "this one", and "that one", and "those over there". So, eternity is indeed spent "in the body", once nirvana is realized, but this "body" is not one, but infinite. Buddhism envisions an "unbounded resurrection body". In other words, ultimately, the universe, the cosmos, as a whole is one great body, and realization of nirvana also means the realization of no-difference in relation to the great universe-body. So the Christian idea of the resurrection of the body, signifies the larger process of one's bodily resurrection as the universe-body.

Thus, hidden within Christianity, is Buddhism; and hidden within Buddhism, is Christianity.

A Buddha is Born! Svaha!
The Lord is Come! Maranatha!
Jai Baba!

The Pagan "Gods"

As an answer to the question of the possibility of a "dialogue" of Orthodox Christianity with the various non-Christian religions, the reader has been presented the testimony of three Orthodox Christians who confirm, on the basis of Orthodox doctrine and their own experience, what the Orthodox Church has always taught: that Orthodox Christians do not at all have the "same God" as the so-called "monotheists" who deny the Holy Trinity; that the gods of the pagans are in fact demons; and that the experiences and powers which the pagan "gods" can and do provide are satanic in nature. All this in no way contradicts the words of St. Peter, that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth Him and worketh righteousness is acceptable to Him (Acts 10:34-5); or the words of St. Paul, that God in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless He left not Himself without witness, in that He did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness (Acts 14:16-17). Those who live in the bondage of satan, the prince of this world (John 12:31), in darkness which is unenlightened by the Christian Gospel — are judged in the light of that natural testimony of God which every man may have, despite this bondage.

For the Christian, however, who has been given God's Revelation, no "dialogue" is possible with those outside the Faith. Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?... Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord (2 Cor. 6:14-17). The Christian calling is rather to bring the light of Orthodox Christianity to them, even as St. Peter did to the God-fearing household of Cornelius the Centurian (Acts 10:34-48), in order to enlighten their darkness and join them to the chosen flock of Christ's Church.

All of this is obvious enough to Orthodox Christians who are aware of and faithful to the Truth of God's Revelation in the Church of Christ. But many who consider themselves Christians have very little awareness of the radical difference between Christianity and all other religions; and some who may have this awareness have very little discernment in the area of "spiritual experiences" — a discernment that has been practiced and handed down in Orthodox Patristic writings and Lives of Saints for nearly 2000 years.

In the absence of such awareness and discernment, the increasing presence of Eastern religious movements in the West, especially in the past decade or two, has caused great confusion in the minds of many would-be Christians. The case of Thomas Merton comes immediately to mind: a sincere convert to Roman Catholicism and Catholic monasticism some forty years ago (long before the radical reforms of Vatican II), he ended his days proclaiming the equality of Christian religious experiences and the experience of Zen Buddhism and other pagan religions. Something has "entered the air" in these past two decades or so that has eroded whatever remained of a sound Christian outlook in Protestantism and Roman Catholicism and now is attacking the Church itself, Holy Orthodoxy. The "dialogue with non-Christian religions" is a result rather than a cause of this new "spirit."

In this chapter we shall examine some of the Eastern religious movements which have been influential in the 1970's, with special emphasis on the attempts to develop a syncretism of Christianity and Eastern religions, particularly in the realm of "spiritual practices." Such attempts more often than not cite the Philokalia and the Eastern Orthodox tradition of contemplative prayer as being more kin to Eastern spiritual practices than anything that exists in the West; it is time enough, then, to point out clearly the great abyss that exists between Christian and non-Christian "spiritual experience," and why the religious philosophy that underlies this new syncretism is false and dangerous.

Now, much can be said pro and con regarding this excerpt from Fr. Seraphim Rose. The criticisms need not detain one from learning profitably from this selection and the work from which it comes as a whole. Rose's passion is clear, as well as his honesty and directness. It is those qualities that one can imbibe from Rose's writings, regardless of one's position on issues such as inter-religious dialogue and so forth. In fact, much of evangelical writing of the conservative/fundamentalist persuasion (not that Rose would be happy with being mentioned in the same sentence with fundamentalism) provide insight into some of the common qualities found in devout practitioners of any spiritual tradition. Any real spiritual sadhana includes discrimination, the discrimination of the false and dangerous, from the true and skillful; a realistic perspective that does not assume identity where there is simply similarity; an awareness of the preciousness of human life, to the extent that misuse and abuse of human choice becomes comparable, in a very real way, with eternal existence in the hellish realms; and a radical honesty, both within oneself and with"-out" others.

Eternity Explained

The fact is "aeonios" wherever it is used in the New Testament has one uniform meaning. When applied to God, He is the aeonis God, or the God of the ages, i.e., the Being who through aeons of time is working out His wonderful plan. The word "aeonios" has the force of belonging to, or in connection with the ages; for example, "aeonios life," "aeonios salvation," "aeonios redemption," "aeonios inheritance," "aeonios fire," and "aeonios punishment" (see John 3:16; Heb.5:9; 9:12,15; Jude 7; Matt.24:46). To suggest that "aeonios" means "endless times" or "endless ages," is not only a contradiction of terms, but nonsensical and confusing. It is equivalent to suggesting an "infinite finite," a "limitless limit," a "something nothing" or a "full vacuum." An age is a span of time, a period of existence. Though seemingly immeasurable to man, nevertheless it is of limited duration.

God’s Punishments Have Purpose

In examining "aeonios" as it is applied to punishment, we see that this too pertains to a period of time or age in which God is working out His purposes. The Greek word translated "punishment" is ""kolasis," which means "to curtail, retrain, chastise, or prune." Aeonios chastisement would then be a sentence of chastisement with both a beginning and an end, for the purpose of correction. The fact that the sentence of chastisement has an end does not in any way take away from its severity (Rom.11:22). God has promised judgment to theGentiles until He sends forth judgment unto victory-Matt.12:18-20. For when God’s judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness-Isa.26:9. Never are God’s chastisements meaningless, as they would be if aeonios punishment were forever. Even those who have not benefited from His judgments while living on this earth, will one day experience His judgments, for "it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" Heb.9:27. The marvelous truth of the gospel is that God’s chastisements are redemptive. Ultimately all the ends of the earth shall know God, for He has sworn by Himself, and the word has gone out of His mouth in righteousness and shall not return void, that unto Him every knee shall bow and every tongue shall swear-Isa.45:22-23; Phil.2:10-11.

Last Life

One common criticism against the notion of reincarnation, or re-birth, centers on memory and fairness: "If we reincarnate because of our non-beneficial, harmful, and un-ethical actions in previous births; then how is that fair, since we don't remember or recall those particular actions? How then can we avoid those actions in this life, if we don't remember our past lives?"

There is a simple method of remembering which non-beneficial, harmful, and un-ethical actions we performed in a past life. This method takes Three Easy Steps:

1. Read the Ten Commandments; read the Five Precepts.

2. List the commandments and precepts you've broken in this life.

3. The ones you've broken in this life, are the ones you've broken in past lives.

QED

Acts of Merit

If you really want to honour and help your departed ones, then do some meritorious deeds in their name and transfer the merits to them.

According to Buddhism, good deeds or ‘acts of merit’ bring happiness to the doer both in this world and in the hereafter. Acts of merit are also believed to lead towards the final goal of everlasting happiness. The acts of merit can be performed through body, speech or mind. Every good deed produces ‘merit’ which accumulates to the ‘credit’ of the doer. Buddhism also teaches that the acquired merit can be transferred to others, it can be shared vicariously with others. In other words, the merit is ‘reversible’ and so can be shared with other persons. The persons who receive the merit can be either living or departed ones.

The method for transferring merits is quite simple. First some good deeds are performed. The doer of the good deeds has merely to wish that the merit he has gained accrues to someone in particular, or to all beings. This wish can be purely mental or it can accompanied by an expression of words.

Revati

There are two main theories of the after-life: (1) you have one chance, and then it's eternal hell or eternal heaven; or (2) you have many chances, and neither heaven nor hell is eternal.

One attraction the "one-life-only"-idea possesses is that, if you 'get right with God', then this is your only lifetime on earth, and you have eternity in heaven.

One attraction the "many-lives-possible"-idea possesses is that, if you don't 'get right with God', then this isn't your only lifetime, and you don't have to spend eternity in hell.

The synthesis of both is this: God transcends both heaven and hell -- thus, take your stand in the presence of God in this very moment.

Heaven and Hell

How long will you keep pounding on an open door?

I carry a torch in one hand
And a bucket of water in the other:
With these things I am going to set fire to Heaven
And put out the flames of Hell
So that voyagers to God can rip the veils
And see the real goal.

-- Rabi'a al-'Adawiyya (d.801)

Rabi'a was one of the earliest Sufis, and she was apparently the first Sufi to speak of the Divine as "Beloved", a characteristically Sufic appellation.

One Life, or Many?

Work as if you've birthed and died a thousand times.
Love as if you have one life to live.

The subject of singular or multiple lifetimes forms one of the distinctive differences separating much of the East from much of the West. A few questions to keep in mind, if one is troubled by such a seemingly tremendous difference among the great religious traditions of the world:

1. What is a "life"? Where does "life" begin, and where does it end?
2. Who is this "I" that apparently takes birth, and apparently dissipates at death?
3. Do our inclinations, perspectives, and personal and social histories determine which ideas we find more believable?
4. "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"
5. "Which one life are you living right now?"