Spadery

I’m often the “bad guy.” In my family people know that if something needs to be said, regardless of whether it’s comfortable or not, it’s likely to come from my mouth. I’m also known for not sugar-coating very much at all when I speak. In a recent yearly review with my manager, it was mentioned more than once by her that my communication is very direct and clear and that people always know what I think, whether good or bad. (For the record, this was cited as a strength which I bring to the company and one for which my manager is glad to have me on her team.) I’ve also been asked to review a few tools at work and the Indian gal (whose first language is not English) who asked me said like, “We want your bad feedback.” Of course, she meant that she wanted me to offer what she knew I’d bring to the table anyway: Very open, honest, and direct discussion, even if critical.

This kind of trait in someone is often valued, but not appreciated – if that makes sense. Everyone values the idea of having someone they can super trust, but most people end up just getting pissed because of the honesty that comes with that trust. And often, a big part of that is the frequency of spades being called spades. People are so used to judging spades for being spades that they might gloss over an instance of spadery being called such, but without that usual judgement. They just assume judgement is happening. This is something that is part of the exhausting work placed on the shoulders of someone like me: Seeing spades without judgement and always having to explain the lack of judgement to others – which also means explaining that they too can call a spade a spade without judging. I’m repeatedly baffled that people struggle so much with this. People are terribly judgmental – so much so, in fact, that it becomes automatic too much of the time.

Maria Wirth, as I’ve written here before, is an inspiration. Back in May of this year she published a post to her WordPress blog which talks about this to a degree and goes into the importance of it. Of course, a bit of her point DOES hinge on making the call to label something as good or bad, which is usually a form of judgement. But she makes her point in a very civilized way and I encourage you to click here to have a look for yourself as she’s far more eloquent than I am.

Aum Shri Mahaganeshaya Namaha | Aum Shanti

Advertisement

Gnosis-ery

I subscribe to a blog here at WordPress called Isma’ili Gnosis. I don’t read all of the posts that are published because I prefer to spend my already terribly limited time doing other things that are a little more applicable to my personal path.

Isma’ilism seems to be Sufism. And in many ways, on a number of levels, Sufism is closely related to my path with the Sahaj Marg / Heartfulness…. “path of the Heart” and all that. Honestly, I think it’s because of having spent a couple of years studying Islam intensely and now walking a path that carries its own “flavor” of Sufism that I can stomach Islam really almost more than I can Christianity.

There’s a post on the Isma’ili Gnosis site that I want to draw your attention to. It’s a post meant to explain the “strongest argument for the existence of God” and as you would expect it’s a long and kinda meaty post. You can find it here. I’m not sure I stand by every word of the post itself, but a lot of it is legit from where I sit. The second full paragraph was something that struck me. It reads,

“Two major reasons for the growing popularity of atheism and agnosticism among people today are that a) most people are not exposed to the classical concept of God within their own religious tradition and instead are made to believe in an anthropomorphic image of God and  b) the positive arguments for God’s existence are poorly understood and misrepresented by both atheists and people of faith.”

To be clear, I really don’t take issue with “the growing popularity of atheism and agnosticism.” It’s my firm belief that those paths are no less valid than any other and I also firmly believe that anyone walking either or both of those paths will absolutely and undoubtedly arrive at whatever my own final destination is. There can be no other option.

Beyond that, I agree with the two other points in the paragraph. As far as “a” is concerned, a huge problem of today – in all kinds of contexts – is that no one really knows what they’re talking about. We settle for snips-n-clips from lots of different places, half of which oughtn’t be trusted – and we assume those tidbits of info are the sole and whole truth. This, dear readers, is wholly dangerous. It’s because of this that, for example, Christians, are almost universally ignorant of the real depth of their own holy texts. (I’ll generalize here because in this case it’s pretty well safe to.) The texts that now make up what is known as the Christian Bible are quite varied in regard to original intent, original content, original language, etc… And much more than just those things, never mind additional factors like cultural norms of the time and other such things that really should be taken into consideration. Christians today – generally – have very little recognition that their own cherished path originally amounted to what we now would absolutely label as a Middle Eastern cult… which even today are problematic. And Christians aren’t alone in this systemic ignorance. All that to say … Point “a” is correct. Too many of us known too little about the things we cling to.

A side effect of this terrible ignorance is the mention of an anthropomorphic image of God. I’ve written here probably more than once about what a terrible idea it is to humanize God and how faulty any conception of God is that exhibits traits that too closely resemble human behavior. It. Is Dangerous. And it is dangerous whether you revere Christ or Krishna.

Point “b” from the paragraph quoted here is also important. On Facebook, I follow a variety of groups from all walks of life. There’s a “godless and irreligious” group whose posts I see. And really, even outside of Facebook posts this remains true – I’ve visited atheist websites and I own a number of atheistic books. Something I have noticed is that Atheists mostly only have stones to throw at the Abrahamic religions. Seriously, I’ve viewed A LOT of atheist material and I don’t think it’s too inaccurate to say that not more than 3% of all I’ve ever seen has been directed toward Dharmic religions. Almost always their “targets” are Jews, Christians, and Muslims. I think this is indicative in its own way but this also seems to be the other side of the coin of what’s mentioned in regard to positive arguments simply not being known by either side.

Anyway, read the post. Because I said. It’s for your own good.

Aum Shri Mahaganeshaya Namaha | Aum Shanti

Two Sides – Same Coin

Yesterday I reposted something on Facebook that I knew would catch the attention of a few specific people. What I reposted can be accessed by clicking here. It’s a piece written by Spencer Hall for the KSL website (ksl.com) and relates to recent changes made in “Handbook 1” (Administrative Handbook).

At the top of the article you can find a video clip of the news agency reporting on the matter. According to that video,  these changes relate to children of same-sex couples and state that

1. There can be no baby blessing.
2. No baptism until age 18.
3. No longer live with a gay parent in a gay relationship.
4. Must disavow same-sex relationships.
5. Any adults who are in a same-sex marriage or otherwise in a same-sex relationship are at risk of “punishment” based on grounds of apostacy (rejection, being renounced).

There is also a quote by Eric Hawkins, a Church spokesman, that basically reiterates that while the Church is and has been officially “against” anything same-sex, these changes to the Handbook aren’t in any way a rebuttal of “the law of the land” and that the Church recognizes that people are free to think or feel differently. There are apparently many parallels between how the Church views and treats polygamous situations.

Later in the video we find a quote by Troy Williams, the Executive Director of Equality Utah who said, “In America all churches have the religious liberty to welcome or exclude whomever they desire. We know that children of same-sex parents are treasures of infinite worth. In our universe, all God’s children have a place in the choir.”

The article below the video restates what the video did (which I’ve numbered above), plus shows “snip-its” of what appears to be the Handbook 1 modifications. I appreciated that this resource seemed to state the changes flatly. There was no, “OMG they’re devils!” The most emotional part of it was the quote by the Equality Utah Director – but I expected that and, frankly, I agree with his sentiment. All people ARE infinite treasures and should be treated as such.

I was browsing my Facebook newsfeed this morning and, as I expected there would be, there were a few posts related to the stuff I’d reposted. I’m assuming these had something to do with the strong opinion I expressed on my own Facebook page. One of those posts was to discuss the “9 Facebook Myths” about the Mormon Church’s policy on gays. (Click here to see it.) The very first thing that I noticed is that it came from a Latter Day Saints website. On one hand, I think all sides have to be heard and if anyone should have a voice on their behavior it’s the one behaving. On the other hand, you can ask a pedophile about pedophilia and the answer you’ll get is likely to be anything but objective. So, there’s that. But for the sake of showing the alternate side of the coin, let’s also look at the LDS page posted.

Two things in relation to the two changes are noted before tackling the myths. Those two notes are:

1. Change to the definition of apostasy – Entering a gay relationship / marriage is apostasy.
2. For children of gays to be baptized, they must first reach adult age and be cool with the Mormon definition of eternal marriage.

Now onto the Facebook myths, as well as my take on them.

1. The Changes Punish Children.
   1. The challenge to this supposed myth is that children are allowed to attend all services, etc… But that’s kind of sugar coating it. The rebuttal to this myth states, “All people can receive all the ordinances of salvation and exaltation.” But that’s awfully misleading. The truth is that all people can, including children of gay people, so long as you formally cut yourself from those who are officially banned. Saying that “all” people can receive “all” the good stuff is a simplistic kind of dishonesty. Most of the discussion for this myth seems really concerned with divorced families – an interesting take on why rules need to be implemented for children of gays. This, too, seemed to be thinly-veiled ridiculousness.
2. Gay People Are Treated Worse Than Other Sinners.
   1. Kudos to the Mormons for recognizing that gay marriages are legal marriages and adjusting some of their perspective in regard to gay relationships equating fornication. That’s at least SOMETHING. But it’s not enough for the rest of us. Time and time again the whole, “love the sinner hate the sin” crap has proven to be impossible and impractical for religious people to actually and successfully live. It simply doesn’t work. I don’t feel that the Mormons treat gays as worse than another sinner, but that’s not the issue. The issue is that gayness, which is 100% natural and inherent throughout Creation, is viewed as sin. For the purpose of this post, though, I side with the Mormons. My kind aren’t treated any worse than anyone else they hate.
3. Violation of the Church’s 2nd Article of Faith
   1. “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam’s transgression.” This is an area I think the Mormons stand out from the bulk of Christianity and this is an area that, superficially, I agree with them. In the same way I don’t think a person of my generation is uniquely and personally paying for, say, the alcoholism of his great-great-great-grandfather, I don’t think any of us are suffering because Adam listened to Eve. The Mormons are definitely right on rejecting that doctrine. The thing I definitely disagree on though, insofar as this supposed myth is concerned, is that it says that children of gays are protected from repercussions by requiring they wait … blah blah blah. What’s it’s requiring is that these children eventually choose the Church and its Handbook over the parents and family who love them.
4. Children Are Required to Reject Their Parents
   1. This supposed myth obviously relates directly to the prior one. The rebuttal here is that the individuals in question aren’t required to say anything to their parents in regard to rejecting that part of who they are. This practically screams “crazy-ass loophole.” So we gay people are supposed to be okay with our children seeing us as broken – because they aren’t forced to communicate that to us? “Children must simply recognize the Church’s teachings on sin.” Are you kidding me? The rebuttal for this “myth” also indicates that there’s a disconnect of sorts with those who have a problem “loving the sinner but hating the sin” and then states that these same people often believe that sexuality is the primary factor in personal identity. I, for one, see hating the sin but loving the sinner as total bullcrap AND also don’t see sexuality as a primary factor in personal identity. Kind of like an earlier myth, this rebuttal goes off on a side note and steers away from the original issue. If it doesn’t strike someone as somehow “off” to suggest “your kids are allowed to join our club wherein they’ll have to disavow who you (their parents) are, but it’s okay because they don’t have to tell you they agreed to believe you’re broken” then you yourself may well be “off.” It actually makes all of this sound a bit cultish – which is usually something I defend Mormonism on.
5. Newborns As Apostates
   1. The first thing in this myth’s rebuttal that seems to glare at me is, “The new policy recategorizes same-sex marriage as apostasy instead of fornication.” This is to say, “You used to be a sinner, but now you just have to get out. (And we still think you’re a sinner.)” My question is, how is this an improvement of any kind? If you really think something is a sin that some folks are struggling with, how is altogether kicking them out a good thing? How does that help that poor old sinner? Beyond this, I think I agree with the rest of the rebuttal to this myth. I’ve known of a number of families where one parent adheres to one religion and the other belongs to another. It can lead to drama within the family and even divorce. I think it’s a matter for families of split-religious identity to sort out, though, and not something the Church should be governing.
6. Church is Depriving Itself of Gay Members
   1. The last sentence of this rebuttal is really all that anyone needs to read. The Church carries the understanding that It is correct because It knows and understands the God of the universe better than anyone else and so people who are in disagreement are the issue. The Church isn’t depriving Itself, people are.
7. This Hurts Me Personally
   1. This myth, and one or two others so far, are ones I’m not at all familiar with. I’ve not seen this / these on Facebook anywhere or even elsewhere online – but that doesn’t mean they aren’t out there. The majority of this rebuttal is sentiment I agree with. Emotions are CRAZY things and have so much destructive potential when not properly governed or caged. I’ve written about it a dozen times here on Sthapati Samanvayam. I do agree that emotion shouldn’t govern or influence policy or standards. However, one area I can see people saying this and it being a legit thing to say is, for example, lets say I (a gay person) have a child who wants to become a Mormon. As the loving parent of my child, I can and would support virtually any decision my child makes – including joining any religion of his or her choosing, regardless of my opinion of that religion. But it WOULD pain me on a very personal level to know that something my child wanted to pursue, which carries much potential for good (as Mormonism does), would require them to jump through hoops that would ultimately lead to them “agreeing” to doctrines that say their loving and supportive parent (me!) is a doomed sinner they have to disavow. Any person facing that kind of thing would naturally feel conflicted and, as a parent, knowing my child would need to endure that kind of bullshit to join a religion would be personally painful. Absolutely.
8. The Church Lost and Should Move On
   1. Whoa. This myth is another that I haven’t seen anywhere online, but the rebuttal is really something else. The first thing that caught my attention is that the rebuttal says that the Supreme Court doesn’t dictate how churches should behave – but a rebuttal of an earlier myth indicated that the church is trying to go by the law of the land. Which is it? Does the law of the land matter and need regarded, or no? I also disagree greatly with the statement that implied the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage is just a “popular trend.” Aside from those two glaring pieces of idiocy, I agree with this rebuttal. Churches shouldn’t be “forced” to participate in marriages they don’t agree with, and the rebuttal points out that the decision to list gays and gay marriage under apostasy is a means to protect the church from being made to do things that go against what it believes. The funny thing is, nobody is flocking to anti-gay churches (like the Mormon Church) to force them to sanction gay marriage. This is all ENTIRELY unnecessary. The religious organizations that affirm gay relationships are known by gays and are where gays are going to get married – for those who want married in a church. Because gays, above many other groups, are keenly aware of the Separation of Church and State we tend to let those who don’t want us not have us. We don’t want your religious hate dictating whether we have the right to marry or visit our spouses in hospitals and we don’t want you to marry us. It’s really that cut and dry. The Church is separate from the State – and should be – and so the Mormon Church already has the protection is thinks it’s now securing.
9. These Changes are Eternal Doctrine
   1. This is probably the most confusing to any non-religious person or any person entirely unfamiliar with Mormonism. This rebuttal almost made me say, “OF COURSE” out loud. After all the fuss and mess created and 9.5 myths dissected, there’s gotta be a way to weasel out. So, let’s play a game that’s probably 50% semantics and close by saying that things could change as additional revelation becomes available – and advise people to, in the meantime, just do what you’re told.

One thing I admire about the Mormon Church is that, regardless of what their beliefs are or aren’t, they’re generally peaceful about them. On the record and off the record, the Mormons I know (and the Mormonism I know) are generally really good about practicing the whole “live and let live” idea. They’re totally fine with staying in their own bubble and agreeing to disagree – which is something I respect and value greatly.

Aum Shri Mahaganeshaya Namah | Aum Shanti

 

God’s Favorite Month

Back in June I read a blog post published by someone I no longer associate with but whose writing I sometimes enjoy reading. This young man, like myself, is gay and Hindu and non-Indian. Despite our differences, having those things in common means we understand certain things on the same level – which is nice. His post, which can be accessed by clicking here, was about Purushottama Masa, a leap month in the Vedic calendar. (The modern calendar observed here in the West has what we call leap years, but it’s really more like a leap day – a day that isn’t recognized on the calendar except in certain years. This is probably why the young writer called Purushottama Masa a leap month – it’s a month that isn’t always in the calendar.)

It’s explained in the post that Vishnu (Hari-dev) values this month immensely – so much that it’s his favorite month and he rewards devotees who up their sadhana during this auspicious time. It’s pointed out in the post that this increase in favor manifests as added benefits. So whatever punya you might normally accrue from, say, one round of mantra jaapa, is magnified during this leap month. Maybe during this month, because it’s God’s favorite, one round of jaapa counts double? Triple? Only god knows, I bet.

He goes on to focus the post not around it being god’s favorite or the added benefits, but of the importance of making every day and every offering as valuable as something offered so uniquely as in Purushottama Masa. I agree with that in general, but I often have an eye for details and the indication that this month is god’s favorite really stood out to me.

Please believe: Any god that has favorites is no god at all.

Throughout humanity’s history of god, we have claimed to know god well enough to be able to speak on god’s behalf – telling or explaining to others what’s okay with god and what isn’t, what god favors and what isn’t favored. Throughout humanity’s history of god this has proven to be immensely dangerous, almost invariably. After all: Jews are god’s “chosen people,” Christians know their jagadguru to be god’s “only begotten,” Islam’s idea of jihad couldn’t be pursued on any level without knowledge of what is holy in contrast to what is unholy, and Hindus apparently know god’s favorite month (among other things).

I don’t know why this tendency exists. Probably ego prospering withing Maya. Regardless of culture or time, it seems like something humans are bound to do: Fuck god up. We can’t be happy with our own unique first-hand experiences. We don’t usually want to rest in those experiences and treasure them as private peeks at our Source. At a minimum we often try to codify. In extremes, we kills others for not accepting what we know to be true. And the rest of the time we engage in all manner of in-between ridiculousness.

I think Sahaj Marg’s assessment that religion is like kindergarten is very fitting and very true. From kindergarten you get stick figure drawings, coloring outside the lines, and maybe some shaky handwriting. Yeah it’s sweet. It feels innocent because it’s a beginning and because it’s a beginning it actually holds tremendous value. But no one is meant to stay there. You leave kindergarten behind as soon as you possibly can and failure to do that usually means something really unfortunate like a learning disability or maybe even trouble at home. It’s like in a previous post when it was mentioned that Jesus was like, “Guys, c’mon! Stop being children of God. You have to grow up now.”

The quote pictured below was said by my current guru’s guru and I think it does a fine job expressing why we should leave religion behind as quickly as possible. Regardless of the innocence possibly expressed in stick figure drawings, they are still crude. Very crude representations of a much bigger reality, right?

 

 

 

Religion, especially if it tries to convince you that god has a favorite anything or a preference of any sort, is like saying a five-year-old’s stick figure representation of her mother is a sufficient and entirely accurate depiction of that woman. I don’t think the mother of the five-year-old is offended by the stick figure drawing. Not at all – the mother doesn’t really care. Being the mother, she understands that, for a brief time, that’s the best the child can do. Certainly, if god even had an opinion on religion, then god would view religion the same way: It’s the best some humans can do, at one stage or another in life.

But stick figures aren’t accurate – not even close. And kindergarten is meant only as a beginning.

Aum Shri Mahaganeshaya Namaha | Aum Shanti

Wirth’s Wisdom

Periodically another blogger publishes a post and, while they are invariably a bit long-winded (that’s saying something coming from me! lol), they also invariably possess an excellent viewpoint balanced with reason and devotion and much life experience. I would encourage everyone to check out her blog and her “About Me” page to learn some of her background.

I’ve included a link here to a recent post of hers that I found to be particularly logical and well written. It deals with violence in religion and makes some incredible and valid points. Do give it a look.

Aum Shri Mahaganeshaya Namaha | Aum Shanti

Unclean Lines

 

I went to church recently. Not temple, (Christian) church. This is not the norm for me. The congregation I worshiped with is one I have thought about visiting for a while. In truth, it’s a flock I used to belong to and worship with regularly. This community gathers at what is now known as Life Journey Church, click here to visit their site, but used to be called Jesus Metropolitan Community Church (JMCC). For anyone who isn’t already aware, the Metropolitan Community Church is a non-denominational sect of protestant Christianity that is not only welcoming of the LGBT population, but also is affirming. As such, the membership is usually primarily humans from the greater gay community – although there are also plenty of non-gay folks who attend, as well.

I first learned of the MCC while as a teen I began coming to terms with my sexuality and was also a very active Christian person. This was a tumultuous time in my life because my family isn’t Christian and Christians generally don’t like gays. So, quite honestly, I wasn’t sure what my future would hold and I anticipated being thrown out by one or both of these important parts of my life. As it turned out, only the Christians threw me out. (Not before putting me through the bogus-est of therapies. Calvary Baptist Church, click here for their site link, I think, had never had to deal with a problem like me.) During those difficult years, my backup plan was to run to the MCC for a kind of sanctuary, hoping that in my worst-case scenario, someone would help me. Had it come to that, I’m sure someone would have – luckily that wasn’t needed. This is in no small part because my family mostly kicks ass. I’m not sure exactly when JMCC changed its name to Life Journey or if the dropping of the “MCC” from the actual name indicates a separation from the larger MCC denomination, but I know I parted ways with the church after a chat with the then-and-now pastor, Jeff Miner.

The chat happened after a morning service. Something about the sermon hit me as being uncomfortable. This is probably due to my own personal development and spiritual growth and a growing feeling that Christianity simply wasn’t big enough. That morning, after the service, I filed in line with many others who hugged our pastor as we left the sanctuary, and while there I asked him about god greeting people at the so-called Pearly Gates. I don’t recall exactly, but his must have been mentioned in the sermon that day. I asked him if he thought it would be disturbing for a dead person to arrive at the gates to Heaven, expecting to see Ganesha or Vishnu or the Universal Mother or Nothing At All, but instead to be greeted by Jesus. He agreed that it probably would be disturbing. Our chat lasted only another minute or two and during that time he pretty well said that he believes god shows up in the manner expected by the soul.

That was the last time I attended that (or any other) church. I can play along in most scenarios when it serves a purpose. However, I couldn’t any longer rationalize buying into a religious practice that not only seemed too small for me, but the potential spirituality of which contradicted some of the actual religious structure. Pastor Jeff Miner is a fine person and a brilliant human being – everyone should get to know him. I mean it. But I couldn’t allow myself to continue to participate in a Jesus-centric mode of worship and living when the real and true Reality is that not only is Jesus not the “only way” for us to return home (and you bet your butt he isn’t), but also that whatever God is to whomever recognizes God, God will appear in that form. (Does that sentence read clearly?) I think I could be okay attending a church if it were a church that celebrated Mohammad and Ganesha and Zarathustra (Zoroaster) – equally. But that isn’t the case and it was the final nail in my Christian coffin that a “Jesus only” spiritual methodology had that element of hypocrisy. (Maybe hypocrisy isn’t the right word, but it sure feels like it.) “Jesus is the only way – unless you don’t recognize him – then god will manifest in another way.” Umm…. What? Really?

So I stopped attending and began developing myself as a Hindu. I’ve now spent more time as a Hindu than I did in my two stints as a Christian (couple years as a teen at Calvary Baptist and then a few more years as a young adult at JMCC), and I’ve yet to feel like I’m even remotely close (nor have even inched closer, at all) to outgrowing this path. Still, one thing I missed was my connection to the local gay community – which was primarily facilitated through JMCC. I don’t go to bars. At all, really. And aside from meeting people through other people or going to the bars or joining up some social group or something, the church was the next most logical way of connecting to my tribe. I missed that and still do. And so, I decided to be nosy and see what it’s like now. And I did that last Sunday. The building and many of the faces are mostly the same. The worship service is essentially no different.

Last week’s sermon dealt a lot with the book of Leviticus. More specifically, what made someone or something unclean. It was also noted that throughout the Bible, and especially in the Old Testament, the Jews are referred to as the “children” of god – never as any other kind of people. Always children. With that idea in mind, spiritual evolution was discussed throughout the sermon: We, as a collective, should be evolving beyond the child stage of development. Obviously, most of the references to these children of God are in the Old Testament, where much of the do’s and don’ts of Christianity fall as well. So there’s an association made here between being a child and needing rules. So-called rules are for those who aren’t as developed and still require (benefit from) a structure being imposed upon them. It sounds sweet to think of yourself as a child of god, but it’s not exactly a compliment. We’re told Jesus came to do away with those laws – to fulfill them – as a means of saying, “Guys, grow up! Stop being children.”

 

 

One example discussed in the sermon to illustrate this is the notion of something or someone being unclean. In those ancient days, observations were made: A bird flies. A mammal walks on the ground, and a fish swims. This is natural order. Natural order is, naturally, ordained by god at the time of creation – when He supposedly made birds to fly, mammals to walk, etc … And so, the math follows, if something deviates from this so-called natural order, there’s something terribly wrong. Thus storks and bats (the examples in the sermon) are unclean. Storks are birds that do fish things. And bats are mammals that do bird things. They violate god’s laws of nature and are therefore unclean. The photo in this post is of a Cheez-It product, CRUNCH’D, a cheese cracker – cheesy poof mixture that surely violates the natural order of all creation.

In just about as many ways as animals can be unclean (violate nature), so can humans also. The main example in the sermon, as it tied into the scriptural reading, was leprosy. The verses read by the congregation explained the process of suspecting and diagnosing leprosy. The process could last as few as seven days or as many as 21. The possibly-afflicted could end up being cleared. But if that soul were unlucky and actually had leprosy, then the rules required that person to wear torn clothing, keep visibly messy hair, sleep outside the limits of the city (a very dangerous thing), and wherever they walked they were required to cover their upper lip (with their hand) and shout ahead, “UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!” to broadcast that an untouchable person was near. It was understood that even their breath could spiritually contaminate someone else. To anyone, modern or ancient, scared of catching leprosy it probably doesn’t sound like too bad of an idea to have all those rules in place. You could easily know whether you were in danger of being dirtied by someone else. In those ancient days, though, leprosy wasn’t the only thing that could designate someone as being unclean. If you had any physical blemish what-so-ever then you were unclean. This included people who were disabled – whether from birth or due to age or an accident.

The catch here isn’t that unclean people were forced to do all the aforementioned things. Those are all pretty degrading, but the real rub is that they weren’t allowed in the presence of god – weren’t allowed into the temple, as such. So, someone with scoliosis or spina bifida or whose growth plates were injured as a child and had one limb shorter than the other – all unclean. If you’re autistic or have a hump in your back or are in a wheelchair – you’re simply not good enough for god, for life.

How screwed up is that? And it doesn’t stop there. Like birds that dive and swim as a fish would, men who love men (as women were designed to do) were likewise stepping out of the line and file intended at creation’s start – unclean. Same goes for women who love women as men were designed to do. And god help you if you were transgender – except you would be too unclean for god to help. Then, as we all know, Jesus came to be among humans and not only touched lepers but also made great efforts at setting the record straight on what supposedly defiles a person and what doesn’t. Thank god for Jesus. Right? Not me. I mean, not really. I don’t doubt that Jesus was one of humanity’s many guiding lights, but I don’t go any further than that with him – not anymore. If Ganesha can’t score me front row seats in Heaven, then I don’t know how somebody with half as many hands is going to do it.

So, it was a good lesson delivered in the sermon. For sure. And it was nice to be with those like myself. For sure. But my visit to the church served mostly to remind me of why I no longer follow the Christian Dharma. As heart-felt and genuine as I think a lot of it actually is for those congregants, it still felt almost wholly juvenile and somewhat ridiculous. It felt emotionally imbalanced and smelled of enslavement – tragic for a path preaching freedom through Christ. If Christians are people who have been washed clean and set free through Christ’s blood, then why in the world do so many of them feel threatened or “against” so much of life?

And now my conundrum: I obviously can’t worship there. So much of everything said or practiced under that roof makes me roll my eyes so hard I get a migraine. And besides that, I’ve been clear that it stopped being a good fit over a decade ago. But it was nice to be around other gays – something that happens very rarely for me. Although, these gays aren’t the ones I have the most in common with, whatever that means. I’m just not sure I want a ton of friends who attribute every life challenge or misfortune to Satan or who think they need someone else to pay for their own actions. Plus it’ll be something my husband will never join me in because he has zero tolerance for that kind of bullcrap. So… Do I return? I’m thinking I might – for entertainment, if nothing else. But surely there will be something else.

Aum Shri Mahaganeshaya Namaha | Aum Shanti

My Rejected Soul

Self-Immolation

Many walks in life (namely many of the world religions) have views on why things happen. Why do bad things happen? Why do good things happen? Why do some people have easier lives than others? This could easily fall into a rant about karma, getting what you give, and all that jazz. I don’t want this post to go that direction really, although karma is an underlying factor in all of this. I do, however, want to discuss giving (I think). Karma deals primarily with getting what you have given. I want to focus on giving what you have gotten (I think), and the most disgusting hypocrisy I think I’ve ever known.

Back story: I’ve written about the best and how we have our adventures and how much these adventures mean to me. Well, my best occasionally has adventures that are entirely his own. Some of those adventures are best not had at all and unfortunately because my best choses to be just about the slowest learner EVER, some of those adventures are repeated. It’s because of this irresponsibility and his history of making really dumb decisions that my best is (for) now a felon. A few years ago he landed his self in the klink. It was tragic, truly. He didn’t know my number and so from jail he had to contact his ex who lived along the United States eastern shore – who in turn contacted my beloved through Facebook, who then told me the news. That year, I spent my entire Christmas budget meant for family and friends all on him just to bail is brilliant butt out. Not quite a week ago about the same thing happened, only this time he was able to call me directly – and this time the bail was 40% higher. Now he’s considered a repeat offender and our fear is that he’ll do hard time. That much remains to be seen. Without going into all the details, many of which can probably be assumed, his life will be very different going forward and so will mine and my beloved’s.

Something I find particularly disturbing in all this, though, is the reaction a mutual friend of ours has had toward my best’s predicament.

A little back story on her: She’s a recovering alcoholic, 12-steppin’ her way to a more wholesome life. This has been an on-going journey of hers for a few years already and she often speaks about responsibility and facing the consequences of one’s actions – doctrine she’s surely picked up from her 12-Step studies. She a wonderful person – one of my favorites, in fact. She’s been life-long Christian, and if I can be honest, of all the Christians I have known in my life (and living in the Midwest I’ve known too many!) she’s one of a very small group who doesn’t consistently make me cringe with her behavior. That is, until recently.

Whether it makes sense to you or not, the crux of Christianity is forgiveness. You pray to Jesus asking him for forgiveness of your sins (and the sins of your fathers, which you inherited at birth) and in that prayerful process of “getting saved” and becoming a born-again believer you promise that you’ll do your best to do your best as you move forward in life as a Christian. This is the starting point for Christian believers, and everything grows from there. I find the whole bit to be a rather large pill to swallow because it goes against most forms of reason (which faith shouldn’t necessarily do) as well as natural laws, but since it doesn’t actually apply to me I’m not terribly concerned. To be clear, I’m not writing this post to disparage Christianity. There’s somewhere in the range of 900 million reasons for why I could, but that’s not my goal.

What has been in my head since last Monday / Tuesday is what I intend to really focus on here and now. You see, if you have spent your entire life adhering to a belief system that has a core of, “Just tell Jesus you’re sorry and that he’s your savior and then live the best you can and you’ll avoid Hell” (aka almost ALL of Christianity), then you’re in no position to add to the grief of someone who’s fucked his own life up big-time and is now trying to work through it to a better life condition. Your entire life has been spent hoping to avoid a supposedly eternal punishment that you, by your own standards, “deserve” because of your own actions as well as the consequences you supposedly inherited from your forefathers’ sins – all by simply telling Jesus “I’m sorry.”

I’m here to tell you that if you can avoid eternal hellfire by doing little more than saying you’re sorry, then surely someone else who’s actively trying to make up for shortcomings has a chance at redemption, too. Get over yourself.

Aside from most of Christianity not making any real sense to me, something else baffles me: Apparently, I’m one of the best Christians I know. This is particularly interesting to me since I haven’t considered myself a Christian since my teens and early adult life. Fancy that!

When the best was briefly jailed I posted his bail. Shortly, I’ll be giving my entire temple room and main bathroom in my home to him as his new living quarters. The beloved and I will quite possibly purchase a moped for him, too, because it’s likely he’ll never be allowed to drive again. And because of things like this I’m accused of enabling – of helping him shirk the consequences of his actions.

Let me tell you something about enabling. A true enabler is someone who allows the person with a problem to continue in the path of the problem and to avoid any repercussions associated with walking that path. An enabler could be considered an eliminator because, for all their own misguided reasons, they do their best to eliminate the pain of the one they’re enabling.

That’s not what I’m doing.

I can bail him out of jail. I can open my home to him. I can buy him scooters to help keep him mobile. I can do all those things and so much more and none of it matters as much as haters say. All the power and generosity I can throw at this situation will still not allow him to escape the consequences of his actions. He will still have a miserable police record that will likely affect many aspects of his life for years and years to come. He will still be sentenced to some degree by the courts. He will still have to pay exorbitant legal fees. And he will still be forced into bankruptcy. Someone, please tell me – aside from cold weather exactly what hell am I sheltering him from? I’ll tell you what I definitely am doing. I’m loving him as I love myself.

Of all the rules in the Christian Bible that are followed so strictly, the TWO that Jesus actually says people should do (and which are echoed throughout the Bible starting with the books of Jewish law) are ignored! I can cite places in three of the Gospels where Jesus tells believers that they should 1) Love God with everything they have and 2) Love their neighbor as their own self. I promise these supreme imperatives, these maha-commandments, given by the Jagadguru of the Christians are entirely lost on them. I’m not enabling. I’m giving to him, in his hour of need, what I would hope to receive in mine. I’m not helping him avoid consequences. I’m just showing him the love I would want to be shown. I’m literally loving him as I love my Self – interestingly this is a point where Hinduism succeeds in combining the two because we know God to be the same as our Self. When I love my God with everything I have the natural result is to love my neighbor as my Self because my Self and My God are nondifferent.

Self-Immolation

I hate to say it, but at this point I’m about sick of this hypocrisy. Lazy Christian devotees, remaining as rigid as ever within their hearts, clearly are asleep behind the wheel. This religion very rarely encourages self-realization, and I guess because of that these believers are bound to have little understanding of what it means to love your neighbor as you love yourself. Perhaps if my Christian brothers, sisters, and dear friends would invest the effort to know even a taste of the Self at their own core and subsequently realize that the very same is sitting as the core essence of others, then this vomit-inducing hypocrisy would lessen in our world and we would all do a little better in this life.

I reposted something to Facebook today that was actually about rape, but the sentiment is applicable here no less. The repost said, “My strength is not for hurting.” I’m given so very much in this life. And I hope to receive about as much, also – at least when I’m in need. And I have tasted the Self within me enough to know clearly that my neighbor is indeed my Self. Miserably, I’m about the best Christian I know.

Aum Shri Mahaganeshaya Namaha
Aum Shanti

A Seat At The Table

Image taken from Google Image search

In the disclaimer I offered back on May 25th of this year (which can be read here), I mentioned that there are many kinds of Hindus, and thus many expressions of Hinduism. The kind of Hindu I want to write about is the carnivorous kind. I hope you brought your big mind to class today. I also hope you have your reading glasses and ample time to not only read what is likely to become a rather lengthy post, but ample time to mentally masticate the suchery about to be included. Aum Ganesha!

Before I dive deeply into what I’m planning here, please allow me to be clear: I’m not condoning carnivorous practices among humans. It’s my opinion that our current methodology for farming meat products is not only wasteful and inefficient, but also immensely cruel. I also believe there’s more than enough scientific evidence to support the theory that humans are anatomically and physiologically designed to consume primarily plant material for our nutrition needs. Lastly, I do think, for various reasons which I may end up not going into very much, that humans – as spiritual and intellectual organisms – function optimally when abstaining from eating meat. Beyond that, I’m not mad at folks who chomp beasts.

From where I’m sitting, this topic is a source of contention and too many misguided, skewed intentions. In the middle ages, Christians hunted other groups of people who they perceived to be a threat of some sort. Mind you, those Christians didn’t simply decided against a group and then plot its extermination. There was something about one group or another that was perceived to be a detractor to the process of “saving” the world, or was seen as a roadblock of sorts for those attempting to gain entrance into eternal heavenly paradise. Everyone wants paradise and some people want it for others, too. This was the goal of Christians then, but what ended up happening instead were things like the Crusades where folks were literally hunted and killed for not being Christian. Interestingly, during these times even Christian priests were tested – by vegetarianism. If they refused to eat meat, they were accused of having been influenced by the religion of Manacheanism and would be killed. Some could read this as indicative of the violence inherent in Christian doctrine. I’ll let you take those thoughts where you will.

I find that something along these lines, although not to the same extreme degree, happens in Hindu/Buddhist circles. There are many many scriptural texts in the Hindu religion. Many of those texts strongly advise that eating sentient beings isn’t too far removed from eating another human and at times those same texts precisely detail the karmic and spiritual repercussions – sometimes with an amount of detail that causes me to question the validity of that kind of precision. What’s often overlooked, though, are the parts of the Hindu family that either say nothing about abstaining from meat, encourage killing in some contexts (perhaps for sacrifice or beacuse of so-called duty), or advise that being too against meat eating is no different from actually consuming flesh yourself.

That last bit is important. I personally know a numerous number of vegetarians and vegans who believe that abstaining from fleshy chews will save their souls all the while completely ignoring the inner landscape they’ve cultivated around the subject and all the resultant karma they’re incurring because of it. All of our external actions have seeds which are subtle, many being as subtle as our own thoughts and emotions.

Please understand that aversion is ultimately, qualitatively, no different than desire – both are dangerous traps! This is affirmed/confirmed in the Gita by Shri Krishna, himself. Ultimately, perception of “goodness” is meant to be avoided as much as perception of “evil.” The only possible benefit of cultivating an abundance of “good” is pleasantry of experience. Be sure – the two are essentially the same. Hating or despising the consumption of meat will put you in the same samsaric/karmic boat as those who actually eat meat. Karma is karma, after all, and even the smallest amount of the most subtle karmic expression is still enough to imprison one on the wheel of death and rebirth – preventing moksha from being yours.

I want to show that, while there may be plenty of Hindu Scriptures or accepted concepts that strongly encourage a meat-free life, there are also scriptures that proclaim the more ultimate benefit of transcending such preferences. I’ll write more about that later. One should also note that there’s a key difference between encouraging someone in a behavior and simply not condemning them for it.

I also want to briefly visit what is probably the most common reason for abstaining from meat: Ahimsa. Most understand the term to simply and broadly mean nonviolence. This is true, but at best this definition only half covers abstention from meat. That’s because, at best, “nonviolence” only half defines ahimsa. Taking the definition of a word like ahimsa to be fully encompassed by something like “nonviolence” is like saying Brahman is as simple as “God.” It’s simply not (completely) true. This form of simplicity is at work in other forms of fundamentalism where something important is whittled down to chewable bites, and then those bits are said to contain every flavor of the original. As with any other Sanskrit word, there are numerous layers of meaning, and saying ahimsa means nonviolence is like saying you are your skin. It should also be pointed out that true nonviolence is not possible in ANY life. This is something else that is key to remember and is a prime example of how fundamentalism works, even within Hinduism. You end up throwing out practicality and reason. Other layers of ahimsa are possible in life, with effort, and when ahimsa is applied to a spiritual context those deeper layers are what’s being pointed to, not simply nonviolence. With that said, ahimsa alone makes a great case for better living, but not specifically a vegetarian diet.

Karma is another word that’s quite often tossed around when arguing whether meat eating is massively detrimental within the perennial context. Everyone seems to be under the assumption that all killing is “bad” and that all “bad” actions create undesirable results. If this were really the case, the warrior caste would be lower than the Shudras and would certainly be doomed to hellish places lifetime after lifetime, and Krishna wouldn’t have advised Arjuna that to kill humans (humans he loved!) is the dharmic thing to do. This is further support that the concept of non-violence isn’t meant to be so encompassing. Surely, with God represented equally in all sentient beings, if there are times when it’s literally righteous to kill other humans, there must also be times when it’s okay to kill “lesser” beings – although not necessarily for food. Still, I have a hard time believing that someone who enjoys a hamburger is automatically somehow karmically worse off than a soldier… at least here in the Kali Yuga.

Three Hindu scriptures do sufficiently well at illustrating all of this – not that consuming flesh is ok, but that it’s worse (or just as bad) to have an aversion to it. Due to the current length of this post, I’ll save the actual meat of what I’m getting at for another post, which is just as likely to be as broad as it is long. Stay tuned if you care.

Jai Shri Ganesha!

Aum Mahaganeshaya Namaha
Aum Shanti

Devotion Emotion in Spoken Form

While in Chicago recently I picked up a few books on Ganesha specifically. I’ve already made my way through the smallest, which is essentially a booklet. The title is something like Shree Maha Ganesha Siddhi Vrat.

For anyone unfamiliar, “vrat” is the source of the word vow and typically translates as “fast,” meaning to abstain from food for a period of time as a means of purification. The word “siddhi” has many translations and often refers to some beneficent result of having performed some manner of penance. So, loosely, you complete a vrat and achieve some kind of siddhi. My general understanding of siddhis is that they shouldn’t be sought, and can end up being misused or a distraction – but that they can also be quite beneficial, especially when used for others’ good, and can also serve as “milestones” in personal/spiritual progress.

So this booklet details what it indicates is the fool-proof-est way of obtaining a Ganesha siddhi through a very specific vrat. I’m cool with this, aside from the info in the booklet being mostly uninteresting. But something about the booklet kept jabbing me.

Throughout the booklet, instead of telling the reader the right time to intone a mantra, it would instruct the reader and person attempting the vrat to “say the spell.” My first thought is that this is a translation error. My second thought is one of indignation – afterall, mantras aren’t SPELLS, right?

But wait… for a brief period, after Christianity and before Hinduism (and in fact the reason I even encountered Hinduism) I studied paganism and witchcraft. Spellwork was a huge part of this. Anybody will tell you that a spell is something you say to make something happen. On the mundane level, the very foundation of all language is spellwork. More magically, however, we’re talking about something higher than the mundane that we’re still trying to make happen via words. Are mantras any different than spells?

When you break everything down, yes. They are different. But beyond that, from actual formulation clear up through practical application, mantras are as much like spells as they are different. It’s odd. And while we’re at it, “prayer” in other religions is no different. We’re speaking what we want in hopes that something higher or bigger than us will get things moving. I think in my estimation, the biggest difference is that Hinduism cites more than a little science behind the formulation of it’s myraid mantras – something definitely different than the spell an English speaking witch would cast, which more than anything is devotion emotion in spoken form.

How beneficial is it to split spiritual hairs? I’m assuming it’s only as beneficial as knowing whether there’s power behind your actions and words, or whether you’re kind of just making it up.

Om Shri Mahaganeshaya Namaha
Om Shanti

Not A Popularity Contest

Acharya Kedar

Last night while I was writing a paper for school and contemplating making some rakhis for a holiday coming up, my beloved was doing He-Man stuff and watching some show on some television channel. He’s always watching some kind of alien or ghost show.

This show was no exception, except that it seemed to be a continuation of another show I’d once been familiar with. Some time ago, images on our television screen were frequently from some kind of “Celebrity Ghost Stories” show. Invariably throughout the show you were either seeing some celebrity, or former celebrity, sitting in an entirely black room telling a story from their past wherein they encountered a ghost of demon or something, or you were seeing recreations of the ghost story being told by that celebrity at that moment. This show still pertained to celebs and their ghost stories, but now a well-known psychic travels with them (to them?) to some place that they’re connected to or once were connected to, and gives them one helluva psychic assessment.

Last night’s episode detailed the ghostly adventure of a middle-aged black male celebrity, who I did not recognize. The two were walking around a home he once had to leave – the site of his ghostly encounter. While this psychic gal was speaking, she referenced his brother and asked if he could call his brother and have him come over. He did, and his brother did.

When his brother arrived, he came to where they were on some stairs and instantly I was like, “Whoa. That dude’s a Hindu monk!” This man was black and also middle-aged, but was wearing the standard orange/saffron colored garb typical of Hindu monkery, including the hunting toboggan. At first his face wasn’t visible, but soon enough he turned. Low-and-behold, a “dot” of kum-kum at least the size of an American quarter rested right between his brows and slightly above.

I’ll be damned.

As it turns out, his name is Kedar and he’s officially known as Acharya Kedar. He practices Kashmiri Shaivism, of the Siddha lineage, and is himself apparently now a Siddha Master.

As would be expected, the paper I’d been working on suddenly was pushed to another screen and I began a Google search for Acharya Kedar, which turned up a number of results. One of them – this one – is about him specifically. Like any other living teacher, he has that tell-tale shanti written across his face and exuding from his eyeballs.

I found this group’s approach to liberation (moksha, mukti) interesting and immensely traditional and specialized. Apparently, the lineage traces itself back to Lord Shiva, Himself, who is the Guru of all Siddhas. I haven’t looked much into their website, to be honest, but they’re clear that in the 20th century, the Siddha Yoga dharma was led by a Siddha saint named Bhagavan Nityananda and from his guidance a number of other successful and powerful Siddha gurus emerged and led others. This denomination of Hindus now has a specialized practice of yoga known as Supreme Meditation. The website most of my recent education on this group centered around can be accessed by clicking here. Overall, they prescribe a daily sadhana as any sect would, however they also focus muchly on the practice of Shaktipat.

Shaktipat has long fascinated me. I can’t consider it very long without also thinking about charismatic Christians becoming “filled” with the Holy Ghost, gettin’ all dance-y and twitchy, and then getting bonked on the head by the pastor – which naturally lays them out flat before the congregation. Truly, I think Shaktipat is less… unbelievable? Shaktipat can take the form of a physical touch, a glance, within a dream, or in a number of other contexts. Generally, as far as I understand, the purpose is to awaken one’s inherent Kundalini, and thereafter induces a journey of spiritual growth. In all my Hindu journeys, I’ve seen far less said of Kundalini from the Vaishnav sects than I have of Smartas and definitely this talk is found mostly within Shaiva and Shakta sects. I think as Kali Yuga progresses, Skatipat will increasingly become a thing of the past – and future.

Something I found endearing about this little education field trip regarding the Siddha Yoga dharma, is that siddhas (supernatural) are not being sought. A number of Hindu texts warn of potential dangers of siddhas achieved. I think that’s mostly because of the influence of Kali Yuga and how people generally are today – so many would misuse them, if they weren’t already too lazy to do the work necessary to achieve one siddha or another. Beyond that, there’s nothing inherently bad about obtaining one siddha or another, and these are even signs of progression.

I view them as a kind of reward though, as well as a tool. You bust your ass working on yourself and you may well achieve one siddha or another. This then might draw people to you, not so that you can put on a show, but so that you can share the wisdom you’ve realized. Also, depending on the siddha, you will hopefully have developed enough to recognize a way in which usage of said siddha can further your own progress. They’re like signposts and instruments. Surely, performing austerities or doing sadhana JUST to get a siddha is bad – just as bad as taking a job JUST because of the money involved. It usually results in undesirable consequences.

At any rate, this group seems to specialize in developing siddha gurus, which in turn, have demonstrated a history of using Shaktipat to help awaken others. In my opinion, it’s rather authenticating that they aren’t broadcasting everywhere and their site indicates people don’t even have to change their religion to partake and benefit.

And there you have it.

Om Shri Mahaganeshaya Namaha
Om Shanti