The Proxy

Call me the proxy
I’m a fiddle with strings

Contemplation is the luthier that makes me to sing

Of all the thoughts, impressions, and trifling things
spinning round my head
in constant concentric rings…

There’s not a one may boast on any account
Mighty God alone is the prodigal fount

God’s Basin is like an imperceptible abyss
When I receive naught from that ocean, I know something’s amiss

And the moment I attribute His Grace to myself
it is then I abuse my spiritual health

On the Nature of Free-Choice: An Exegesis of Bhagavad Gita

“The body is called a field, Arjuna; the one who knows the field is called its Knower. This is the knowledge of those who know.”- Bhagavan Krishna, Bhagavad Gita 13:1

Throughout man’s brief, academic, and intellectual history, there have arisen many philosophies regarding the nature of Mind. Conjecture has doubtless been tributary to the formation of such ideas, and (in our better moments of hypothesizing) scrupulous observation; though it remains impossible for conjecture to be absent from this branch of inquiry, regardless of the observer’s rigor. In the present discourse, we will be evaluating a particularly ancient philosophy of Mind and Self that has come to be included in a system of thought known as “Vedanta.” Our instructor is a yogi known as Bhagavan (“Lord”) Krishna, the voice of the Holy Gita. For those who are unfamiliar with the designation of “yogi,” suffice it to say that a classical yogi is one who mobilizes the vital power of each human faculty to the end of interior investigation and discovery. At the outset of his contemplative journey, he asks himself “What can be constituted as my ‘Self’?”; that is, “What (if anything) about human-identity is invariable and absolute?” He thus endeavors to lay his consciousness bare, as a sculptor carving stone works to reveal a “hidden form.” In short, the yogi is his own test-subject, though he is not without Method, Instruction, Collaboration, and Faith.

Before we truly begin our examination, it will be necessary to mention that the text here evaluated (Bhagavad Gita) propounds essentially, a metaphysical philosophy of monism: that is, the author(s) considered all division and variety to be merely a thing of appearance; and that the Truth, transcendent to sense-experience, is a truth of absolute, indivisible unity. Reality is thought to be a seamless, eternal whole known as “Brahman.” Our instructor, Sri Krishna, is thought to be an avatar (“descent”) of this Brahman. Hence his honorific: Bhagavan. Our examination, however, will concern itself with little more than the Holy Gita’s 13th chapter, a chapter that (for practical purposes) deviates somewhat from the overall, monistic exposition. In this chapter, that the human experience may be reconciled with the truth of Brahman, Krishna espouses a philosophy of dualism. He divides the whole; and the categories are these: the “field” and the “Knower.”

In the opening verse of chapter 13, the “field” is made equivalent to “the body;” yet the verse implies more than the translation lets on, for in the broader context of the chapter the “field” encompasses the entirety of physical nature: that is, all the elements and forces contained therein, even the subtle element of space: “akasha” (though the word may be more rightly translated as “ether”). In the Sanskrit language, the essence of the field (physical nature) is indicated by a single word: Prakriti. The scope of this primal energy is described succinctly by Sri Krishna:

“Prakriti is the agent, cause, and effect of every action…” (Bhagavad Gita, 13:20).

All the different forces of physical nature are derived from Prakriti, just as any body-cell with a specialized function can be derived from the neutral, pluripotent cell (stem cell). Prakriti, though fundamentally homogeneous and neutral, can “differentiate” into specialized elements, forces, and energies (though unlike cellular differentiation, the specialized forces of Prakriti can meld back into the primal state). Though it may come as a surprise to classical, western philosophy, the components of mind are counted by Sri Krishna among the forces of the field. Essentially, they are made equivalent to any other naturally occurring, observable phenomenon. They are effects caused by Prakriti, within Prakriti.

Though we have now waded into deep metaphysical waters, I think it wise (for our purposes) to wade a little deeper yet.
Think of the “field” like a phylogenetic tree-of-life representation: all lifeforms represented on the tree share a common origin, yet each divergent species is an emergent “property” of its direct predecessor(s). The same principle applies to the field. As Prakriti continues to differentiate successively, new properties emerge with every branch; yet it is all derivative of the primal substance. In this way, Prakriti dances with itself, acting and reacting within a self-made, entropic cauldron. As previously mentioned, Vedantic thought has placed the components of Mind among the emergent properties of the field, just as modern neuroscience would maintain. However, the emergence of Mind carries with it a profound philosophical implication that any materialist would blanch at: It’s existence depends upon a delicate balance of component forces and incomprehensibly sophisticated structural organization among the elements of matter, namely, biological molecules. Thus, as is observably evident to any investigator, physical nature is not governed merely by a clash of chaotic forces; there exists an input of organization and intelligibility. The conclusion of Vedanta? Prakriti is not the subtlest tier of reality, nor does it cultivate itself. The “field” has a master, a Self, a Knower.

Though indeed simplistic, I think it quite logical to make our present cosmos reducible to an existential chain of cause-and-effect. Prakriti, however, cannot be the First Cause. It cannot be self-existent. Why? Because knowledge itself is the cause of Being, Vedanta proclaims to us.; and, of itself, Prakriti cannot know anything. It’s just a substance. Rather, consciousness, undifferentiated, is revealed to be the highest, most fundamental reality: the cause of all Being, the “Knower” of the field. I pray, do not misunderstand the philosophy here expounded. It is no post-modernistic farce. The consciousness Vedanta speaks of is the cause of specialized, human consciousness; and it is undifferentiated, whereas human consciousness functions with an array of component parts. This consciousness is not equivalent to the ordinary human experience. Remember that the components of Mind  (such as the “ahamkara” [ego] or the “buddhi” [intellect]), so indispensable to human psyche at large, are merely emergent properties of the field, and therefore contingent on the elusive “Knower” for their existence. The Knower is not something we invent according to fallacious whim; rather, it’s something we must discover. In the Gita, this “Knower” appears as a proper noun: Brahman.

Let’s return to the words of our instructor, Sri Krishna, that we may better understand the nature of Brahman. As a Self-realized yogi, Krishna speaks with the authority of one who perceives the highest nature within himself, and within all things:

“I will tell you of the wisdom that leads to immortality, the beginningless Brahman, which can be called neither being nor non-being…Completely independent it supports all things…In its subtlety it is beyond comprehension. It is indivisible, yet appears divided…Know it to be the creator, the preserver, and the destroyer…” (Bhagavad Gita, 13:12-16).

It is this Brahman, this consciousness, that appears as manifest in the staggering multiplicity of life; though it is revealed in a more full stature by those creatures that have come to develop certain faculties of profound insight, namely, human beings. The faculties of which I speak are utilized (predominantly) in human activity of the most sentient caliber: meditation, prayer, scientific investigation, dialectic, selfless service, etc. Regrettably, the interior potential for such activity is largely squandered in the pursuit of baser attractions. The yogi, however, takes full advantage of the human potential with which he has been endowed. By the constant use of his subtlest and most profound human qualities, the yogi makes very gradual acquaintance with his highest nature: the same nature as the First Cause, Brahman. As this tentative acquaintance begins to take on the character of intimate knowledge, the “Knower” begins to bathe the whimsy of the mind (within the larger flux of Prakriti) in the light of objectivity and Truth.
Think of an old-world philosopher living under the assumption that the Earth is apparently flat. How if he were to make a journey into the vacuum of space? His ignorance would be abolished by the truth of gaining Right-Perspective. And so it is with the yogi who gains a stellar perspective regarding the nature of his own Being. His Self-realization is made profound by distinguishing the “field” from its “Knower.” Sri Krishna gives explanation:

“They alone see truly who see that all actions take place within Prakriti, while the Self remains unmoved. When they see the variety of creation rooted in that unity and growing out of it, they attain fulfillment in Brahman…” (Bhagavad Gita, 13:29-30).

“All actions take place within Prakriti.” Admittedly, this statement of Sri Krishna requires additional context. As we have understood, Prakriti is helplessly subject to its own blind forces of cause and effect. That is, it operates passively, as a string of predictable quotients would behave.
Consider the many avian species that migrate annually: Collectively, they act in precise accordance with their given nature. Their inherited chemistry is the cause, and their ubiquitous behavior, the effect (or the “quotient”). Even though the migration is enacted by a conscious life-form, we would still consider such behavior to be a passive “compliance” or “cooperation” with the mechanical dictates of Prakriti. In short, the forces of the “field” hold mastery over mind and body. For any bird, the “Knower” is not yet known; the creature cannot distinguish itself from the field and is therefore subject to every cause-effect relationship that operates therein. In the human being, this passive conditioning can be surmounted, but not without active participation in the highest nature, the First Cause, Brahman. Sri Krishna says:

“This supreme Self is without beginning, undifferentiated, deathless. Though it dwells in the field it cannot be touched by action (cause-effect). As akasha pervades the cosmos yet remains pure, the Self can never be made impure though it dwells in the field…” (Bhagavad Gita, 13:31-32).

In the light of Krishna’s ideals, a man who seeks to participate in Brahman ought to hold in mind certain conceptual truths about that highest nature. As we see in Sri Krishna, Brahman is not an impersonal “collective consciousness” harboring an infinite number of contradictory perspectives. Brahman “himself” harbors one-pointed intention, intention that molds the blind forces of Prakriti into distinct, intelligible order. I quote the Gita’s third chapter, in which Sri Krishna speaks as an avatar of Brahman:
“If I ever refrained from continuous work I would be the cause of cosmic chaos, and finally of the destruction of this world and its people…” (Bhagavad Gita, 3:24).

If all else be disregarded, let he who seeks the “Knower” retain one fact: The Knower does not integrate into the microcosm of the individual; rather, the individual integrates into His cosmos, into reality.

Having necessarily summarized the Gita’s theology, let’s press on. Krishna has revealed that Brahman cannot be affected by the dynamism of cause-and-effect. As the First Cause, this means not that he is “detached,” as a deist would maintain; but rather, that he is completely sovereign. No determinism of Prakriti can supersede the free-will of God (Having come thus far, let us understand “God” and “Brahman” to be interchangeable terms). We have shown what it means for Prakriti to operate under Brahman in a passive manner. The time has now come to describe the practical significance of Self-realization philosophy: what it means for a life-form to arrive at the realization of his/her essence as “the Knower of the field.” That essence is God, and God is sovereign. The Self-realized being, therefore, is an unequivocal participant in the active freedom of God.

Forthwith, we shall discuss the functions of Prakriti exclusively in the context of the mental-field, for this is the only branch of Prakriti that human beings may ordinarily subjugate with the “Knower’s” sovereignty.
Picture this: A human marionette suspended in various places by a web of tiny strings. At the other end, the strings are fastened to various nodes on a Rube-Goldberg machine. The marionette represents the human mind, the Rube-Golberg machine represents the rest of Prakriti, and the strings represent the cause-effect relationships that exists between the two. Let us say that each node on the Goldberg machine is an “object” or “event” within Prakriti that the human can encounter or experience with his/her sensory perception. Each produces an effect in the mind. As the nodes become active, in turn they trip the strings, eliciting movements from the marionette: some subtle, some overt. The marionette is goaded to action (passively) by its myriad attachments: Altercation invokes anger, immanent threat invokes fear, the enemy invokes hatred, the mother and child invoke love (each in the other). Here the reader may suppose that I endeavor to name all attachments as an evil unfit for an illumined human being; but I propose no such thing. What I do propose is this: that each human being participate actively in his/her own free will potential. By choice, the sovereign human being severs or preserves the attachments that he/she will, and this in accordance with the Truth of Right-Perspective; that is, God’s Truth.

No human being lives without individualistic attachment that comes inherently of an existence within Prakriti. For example: Even from infancy, the human being develops (perhaps necessarily) a sense of self-importance, and subsequently, becomes attached to this sense; a child may snatch an excessive amount of treats from a community platter thinking he/she must receive his/her “fair share”. Or an adult amidst a gathering of peers may elevate his/her voice over the input of those gathered, so as to draw (forcibly, not persuasively) a majority of attention to his/her own, truncated perspective.
These, both, are cause-effect relationships derivative of an attachment to self-importance; and we might give numerous other examples to demonstrate the point.

The vital thing is that we begin to “see” or apprehend knowledge about such attachments through self-observation (that is, the metacognitive ability to observe one’s own behaviors, internal and external), a sapient practice that naturally moves us into alignment with our highest nature, Brahman. This is part of Right-Perspective, but it is not the consummation. Once an attachment is “seen,” how can we determine whether it ought to be preserved or severed? Allow me to make a self-evident proclamation: Free-Choice is not the ability to choose out of pure spontaneity (spontaneity doesn’t actually lack motivation, as some would suppose); rather, Free Choice is the ability to choose rightly, in accordance with objective, moral and self-knowledge (i.e. God’s Truth). In Bhagavad Gita, the moral law of the cosmos is known as “Dharma.” This cosmic Dharma functions on the basis of a simple truth: That all Life is One. Any violation of the Dharma, perpetrated by a being of free-will potential, returns naturally to the perpetrator as a lawful consequence (and from God’s perspective, this is actually a matter of grace for the perpetrator); indeed, the truth of Dharma as taught by Sri Krishna was later consolidated by St. Paul the Apostle when he admonished: “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the indignation of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord.” Now, my proclamation begs the question, “If Dharma be not intuitively known (though oftentimes it is), how can we choose in accordance with it?” There are two fundamental means by which all can arrive at a knowledge of the Dharma: Faith and  Collaboration (the functions of which will be described shortly).

The Self-realized man cannot be goaded into action. Technically speaking, the forces of Prakriti are still at work within his mind; but neither his actions nor his thoughts will follow on the heels of any “cause” (unless he so chooses), for there is no subtle force within the mental-field that can escape his objectivity, his Right-Perspective. He “knows” the field, and only takes part in it at the Knower’s moral discretion. Now this is, admittedly, a lofty attainment; and I did promise to make matters practical for we who do not dwell on Mt. Olympus (though some do). However, the ideal, perfected yogi does serve a purpose within this philosophy: he demonstrates that which we strive for, as a matter of course. But most of us are merely human, seeking and striving (hopefully) as best we can. The sovereign power of free choice does not come like magic; it must be cultivated in the mental-field with much labor. When a man gains enough Right-Perspective to comprehend the nature of cause-and-effect within his mental-field, the need for “interior pruning” becomes apparent to him. It begins with self-observation. Remember, the yogi is his own test-subject. He lays his consciousness bare; but not without Method, Instruction, Collaboration, and Faith. Mind, Collaboration is the sire of Method and of Instruction, serving as a furnace in which assumptions may be tested by didactic reason. Faith too is essential to the cultivation process, for no man could persevere on the yogi’s path without a stalwart conviction in that which is not readily perceived (Brahman/Dharma).

The intent of the yogi is to nurture within himself the potential for dominant free-choice, and therefore, to slough from his being all deterministic patterns of thought and behavior. He is not alone; many have gone before him. Let’s have a closer look at the precept of Collaboration, inclusive of both Method and Instruction. What do these principles have in common? Simple. They can only function under the power of Reason. Now Reason is not (like the intellect) subject or inherent to each individual; rather, it’s a substance that may be shared commonly, much like clean water or breathable air.
Let’s suppose we were to pour two glasses of distilled water and give them to separate patrons. Neither patron would say to the other (without knowing the absurdity of his proposition) “my water is different from your water.” Nonsense. Now heed the “foundational assumption” (yes, taken on faith) of science and philosophy: That multiple human beings may arrive at a consonant understanding of any phenomenon through shared Reason. That is, “My water is not different from your water. We use the same substance in the same way.” And just as water does not exist because of human beings, neither does Reason hold such a subjective status. It exists in its own right, antecedent to the human mind.

When a group of human beings come together in a common realization of “philosophy’s foundational assumption,” we behold the emergence of rational Collaboration. Out of Collaboration, Method is developed; and with the development of Method, there arises a need for Instruction: the amateur investigator must necessarily learn from he who has become proficient. Conversely, a “spiritualist” who relies on phantasms to guide him towards Truth may never find anything but personalized illusion; but a man who collaborates will find consonant realization among his fellow investigators. At this point, it ought to be said that no group of philosophers should allow themselves to become a cult (the resulting fallacies might exceed in absurdity those of the “spiritualist”). In fact, all schools of thought ought to realize the need for Collaboration, a practice by which Dharma itself has been broadly understood (the formal branch of western philosophy concerned with Dharma is known as “Ethics”). It’s a remarkable fact that most philosophers have considered morality (like science) to be a realm in which objective discoveries can be had (hence the existence of Ethics).

You may be wondering why I’ve gone to all this trouble about “Reason” and “Collaboration.” To begin with, I wanted to demonstrate that the yogic philosophy here espoused is not a cultist fancy; more importantly, however, we affirmed that Free-Choice potential cannot simply be willed upon oneself in a discrete moment of time. Practically speaking, it must be cultivated; and this requires true Method, tested by the didactic Reason that comes of Collaboration.
For example: No aspiring software engineer could ever hope to successfully alter a line of code without first acquiring the requisite knowledge. If he were to make the attempt in an absence of knowledge, his program would surely acquire a defect. And how much more complex is the human mind than any software program we might create? The implications are obvious. If we hope to make fundamental alterations within ourselves, acquiring the requisite knowledge and abiding by the proper guidelines will be indispensable. Otherwise, something may go seriously wrong. Interior-pruning is no game.

The remainder of the exposition will be devoted to a bit of the method I have utilized in my own life, and its results. Now we become entirely practical. Here summarized is the purpose of sapient Method as we have described it: to slough from one’s being all deterministic patterns of thought and behavior, that one may always choose rightly and rationally in accordance with the Dharma. Repeated now several times, the process requires self-observation; and to begin with, the discipline ought to be employed actively, just as an athlete must repetitiously practice a form in the hopes that it will become second-nature. By this, we seek to arrive at a knowledge of our own passive, deterministic behaviors: those modes of consciousness that all partake of impulsively.

Think of each deterministic behavior as a deep “groove” in one’s consciousness. Even once we “see” such a groove through self-observation, we will certainly continue to fall victim, just as an automobile must naturally fall victim to a deep groove in the road if the driver lacks awareness. The more an impulse is gratified, the deeper becomes the interior-groove, and the easier it will become to gratify the impulse consecutively. For example: On a regular basis, I speak (in person) to a great many individuals; and if I find myself discussing anything of substance, there exists within me the impulse to disregard the sentiments of my counterpart while I silently take time to prepare my coming statement. In itself, compliance with this impulse is unconscious and deterministic. Were I to continually gratify the impulse, the deeper would become the “groove,” the more dominant would become the behavior, and I would therefore behave in hopeless passivity. That is, I would never truly listen to the words of any given counterpart. Now as a result of sapient self-observation, I (thankfully) came to “see” this deterministic tendency and (in a knowledge of rationality and Dharma) resolved that the tendency ought to be unmade through methodical effort; and the effort itself has been nothing less than an expression of my Free-Choice potential.

What then did the process entail? It became clear to me that I needed practice in listening rather than practice in thinking (though I am wanting in the latter respect as well), so I began taking time out of each day to sit amidst the activity of nature for the express purpose of listening intently. By allowing my thoughts to pass me by, I attempted to mark every delicate sound, identify every visual detail; and (more importantly) I endeavored to appreciate the details. Within my mind, this practice began to emphasize the faculty of attention, and its great importance. The lasting impression naturally applied itself to the interpersonal environment, and my desire (in accordance with the Dharma) was realized. True, I approached this process of interior-pruning through the use of sound doctrine and Method, tested in the fires of collaborative Reason. However, the ongoing process has required a far more essential component than any didactic method in existence: that is Faith.

The entire philosophical system contained (partially) herein, operates on the deductive assumption that the universe is possessed of God’s intrinsic purpose, and that the existence of mankind (indeed, the existence of all life) is directly related to that universal purpose. Even in possession of Method, Reason, Collaboration, and all the rest of it, it may be that we never attain to the Self-realization proclaimed by Vedanta. We can only believe it to be possible, or (more specifically) believe that God (in his compassion) will guide us lovingly to the destination. No genuine yogi, as Sri Krishna would say, lives without a conviction in God’s grace, his/her expertise withstanding. The yogi may eventually become sovereign over himself, but he never becomes sovereign over the universe. That is the Lord’s domain.

In summary, to learn about and partake of Brahman (God’s essential nature) is to gain the Right-Perspective that enlivens Free-Choice potential. By this participation in the Godhead, Dharma becomes tangible to the intellect, and the waking mind becomes dominated by the discretion and self-awareness needed to utilize a comprehension of the Dharma. Participation in God’s nature and exploitation of Free-Choice potential isn’t a matter of mystical chants in the dark or “mastery of the chakras;” rather, it’s really a matter of everyday integrity, compassion, humility, and perseverance. Yet as we have seen, to express such virtue sincerely is a tall order in itself. How necessary an ally is God’s grace! By knowledge and grace, it is possible for all deficiency and wrongdoing to be threshed from man’s being. Consider the doxology of St. Jude:

Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to stand you flawless in the sight of His glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior…be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time, now and forever. Amen…” (The Letter of Jude, verses 24-25).

How shall I describe succinctly the essence of Free-Choice? It is no more (and no less) than the ability to choose the Right and the Good, objectively. When the process has finally been consummated, when the yogi (by grace and effort) has finally unearthed his full potential in Brahman, there exists no more even a shred of ignorance that wrongdoing may exploit. Therefore I reiterate, in Him who is able to keep us from stumbling and to stand us flawless in the sight of His glory with great joy, in the only God, be our tireless and radical Hope.
OM

Univocal Reality

It becomes increasingly clear to me that complete repose of the faculties is needed to experience the truth: reality as it is, and not as we define it. In the moment we begin to define reality according to categories of human knowledge, we (at best) reduce the truth of our experience to a crude, blunt form, or (at worst) malign it into a complete fantasy of the intellect. Let us say, for example, that you experience a tree through the medium of your faculties. You may regard the tree according to a mythological interpretation or an impression of childhood; but even if you regard the tree according to precise taxonomy, your mental conception remains arbitrary and subjective. Again, even if you think to yourself “the tree is composed of atoms”, you can do nothing more than muse remotely about what an atom actually is. And yet we know by reason that atoms and trees exist independent of the various ways in which people conceive of them. Therefore, it must be worthwhile to ask a single, odd question: Can reality be known in a vital, authentic, objective sense, without the medium of thought? Let us pursue.

The active, human mind is weighted under the unfortunate compulsion to rationalize. This compulsion serves us well in many respects, but it truncates our vision with regard to the truth. It is far easier to conform the nature of reality to one’s notions (whether they be “scientific” or not) than to let it speak for itself in its unfathomable subtlety. The intellect would become frantic if it could not reduce the objects of its perception into conceptual forms; by doing so, it has ensured the survival of our species. But to experience the truth of reality, rather than the “idea” we conceive it to be, the intellect must be entirely recollected: made unable to replace pure experience with a mere definition. To this end, the imagination must be recollected as well, for it too must needs regard reality according to the finite knowledge of the mind in which it resides. The pure experience, achieved by those few with perseverance enough to learn the willful recollection of their faculties, has been described as “mystical”; but this term has accrued an unjust stigma.

In the west, mysticism is regarded with amusement at best, and oftentimes, wicked contempt. It is deemed “unscientific”. Nothing could be further from the truth. Precise in nature are the ascetic techniques by which mystics learn to recollect their faculties, and the results of recollection are replicable in all who undertake the disciplines with determination. To quote Dr. Michael N. Nagler, Professor Emeritus at University of California, Berkeley: “there is a path to this truth, and it has been taken by saints and sages who went before us. We do not invent it, or go it alone.” Though it is rational in practice, devotees undertake the contemplative path, at the outset, because of their belief in a vital, objective experience of reality. Without such faith, they could never persevere and attain the pure, vital experience, untainted by the biases and truncation of a conditioned perspective. Their faith is negative and positive at the same time: negative because they do not presume (before attainment) to comprehend the nature of the vital experience. Positive, because they believe in its existence. This is why contemplation has been described as a way of “unknowing”. The mystic must not substitute his own conception in place of the experience itself; and this is precisely why he must learn to recollect his faculties (namely the intellect and imagination). They mustn’t, as it were, “get in the way.” Without rational reduction or imaginative fantasy, the mystic is able to perceive reality “as it is”; and thanks to the profound agreement had between spiritual masters, we know this perception to be objective in nature. They all agree, the truth of reality cannot be comprehended by the intellect, cannot be delineated by categories of human knowledge. And yet, its nature is univocal from one man of realization to the next.

To Gautama Buddha, the true nature of reality was known as “Dharma”, the “law of life” (See The Dhammapada, vs. 38). He stated: “The disciples of Gautama are wide awake and vigilant, absorbed in the Dharma day and night…”(The Dhammapada, vs. 297). Gautama did not consider himself unique. Any man or woman who has become “absorbed in the Dharma” is a Buddha his/herself. Of the Buddha’s unseen nature, Gautama had this to say: “How can you describe him in human language- the Buddha, the awakened one, free from the net of desires and the pollution of passions, free from all conditioning…” (The Dhammapada, vs. 180). Consonantly, to St. Paul the apostle, the preeminence of reality was known as “Christ”, in whom “all things hold together” (See Colossians 1:17). And just as, by virtue of the Dharma, Gautama did not consider himself unique, neither, by virtue of Christ, did Paul consider himself to be so: “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me…” (See Galatians 2:20). In the absence of an identity defined by human notions and concepts, St. Paul was aware only of this reality he called “Christ”. By virtue of realization, St. Paul had “become” Christ, and Gautama had “become” a Buddha. On the nature of Christ, Paul addressed the burgeoning Ecclesia as follows: “may you have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge…” (See Ephesians 3:18-19). The love of Christ “surpasses knowledge”, and yet we have within us the “strength to comprehend”. The Buddha’s nature “cannot be described in human language”, and yet it is possible to be “absorbed in the Dharma day and night”. Encouraging as they are, we have yet to demonstrate in what way these consonant realizations are correlated to the “unknowing” process of mystical contemplation. Thankfully, the threads are not difficult to weave together. 

A Buddha becomes “free from conditioning” when the fires of Dharma incinerate his biases and finite notions; yet to behold Dharma in the first place, the aspiring Buddha must recollect the faculties that give rise to such obstructions. He must “unknow” all that his intellect has persuaded him to cling to: personal identity, opinions, doctrines, likes and dislikes. Such is essential to recollection. Thanks to Galatians 2:20, it becomes clear that St. Paul had achieved this very caliber of Buddhahood, for he surrendered to Christ the most treasured possession of human ego: personal identity. Furthermore, the apostle considered himself to be free (by virtue of Christ within him) from the truncation of all human doctrines: “For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some…” (1 Corinthians 9:19-22). Lastly, it will be worthwhile to consolidate my position by demonstrating that St. Paul had learned to “unknow” the duality of “likes and dislikes”: “I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need…” (See Philippians 4:11-12). To attain such a state is, of course, the command of the Buddha: “Don’t get selfishly attached to anything, for trying to hold on to it will bring you pain. When you have neither like nor dislikes, you will be free…” (The Dhammapada, vs. 211). 

For the seeker who studies earnestly, it becomes increasingly evident that these two masters had the same methods, received within themselves the same results. Only one question remains to be answered: is Gautama’s preeminence of reality (vital experience) equivalent to that of St. Paul’s? Is Dharma equivalent to Christ? As we learn from St. Paul, the commodity of Christ is boundless love. It will therefore be proper to ask, can the same be said of those who are “absorbed in the Dharma”? Gautama’s answer is unequivocal: “day and night, the Buddha shines in radiance of love for all…” (See The Dhammapada, vs. 387).

My case has now been well founded, and founded on these principles: that true reality is both immanent and transcendent. Immanent, because it is ready for us to behold if only we will undertake to lift the veil, step from the cave to the light. Transcendent, because it cannot be attained to by the intellect or any other limited faculty. As the Mundaka Upanishad proclaims: “The Lord of Love is the source of love and may be known through love, but never through thought.” To prove reliable the claims here propounded, it has been shown that the greatest among men of realization, sundered by space and time, received a univocal bodhi of ultimate truth. That we may, in a word, impart the Spirit of Gautama and St. Paul, it will be fitting to again quote Vedanta: “To be united with the Lord of Love is to be freed from all conditioning. This is the state of Self-realization, far beyond the reach of words or thoughts…” (See the Tejobindu Upanishad).

 

Illumination by Grace

Humility is of the Spirit, but pride is of the ego. The first is permanent and true, the other, impermanent and ultimately unreal. An egoistic intellect sees not (nor cares to look) beyond its own contrivance, and supposes that it must construct truth out of its “competence” and “ingenuity”. Being harbored, this vanity will cause great distress within the mind; for the ego must continually validate the supposition that its intellect functions, in itself, as a devise of enlightenment. However, once the intellect realizes that truth arises not out of its own machinations, a great burden is lifted.

Enlightened by grace, the intellect finally perceives that truth must transcend its own ability to reason and contrive. Truth, then, is something of the kind that one must bring himself into alignment with that it may be apprehended through natural intuition. To a mind of genuine humility (and fierce discernment), truth illumines the perception with relative ease; for the humble mind seeks to destroy its personal biases via the process of enlightenment. If, through sapient practice (meditation, prayer, study, dialectic, etc.), truth can be recognized in the subtleties of life, good. However, if truth eludes natural intuition, one must be patient and bring himself back into alignment. Otherwise, the intellect will go about the frantic task of trying to construct a hypothesis in which it might rest its uncertainty. If, for example, the ego expects that it ought to comprehend a complex bit of philosophy (yet genuine comprehension is not forthcoming), it will attempt to force its understanding out of insecurity. This impulse must be resisted. No such contrivance is ever reliable, being groped for and conceived as a result of ignorance. On the contrary, we must seek patiently for the truth, resisting the impulse to fill the void of our ignorance with rubbish.

Though out of pride (and fear), the ego uses the intellect to erect arbitrary knowledge within itself, humility of Spirit is content to wait patiently for genuine intuition. Having been cultivated within the consciousness by Spirit itself, humility recognizes from whence truth arises. All modes of consciousness that are able to bear with humility are those portions of mind that have been absorbed (wholly or partially) by Spirit. It is within these modes of consciousness that the intellect should rest; though more often than not, the immature mind will rest in the egoistic modes. Coming to the point where one is able to recognize whether a thought is characterized by by egoism or Spirit seems to be a tremendous milestone in spiritual development. This ability of the “knower” (Spirit) to cultivate its own consciousness is the means by which all conditioned fear is removed, and not fear only, but any inordinate mode of consciousness. As one grows in this way, the more he puts himself to death by merging mind into Spirit. By virtue of self-death, truth becomes immanent to the mind of he who is mature in humility. His intuition comes by divine nature.

Journey through Darkness

Christian mysticism is born of a theological crisis. This theological crisis is precipitated by the very nature of faith. For faith, which is at the heart of contemplation, makes use of concepts and yet transcends them.
-Thomas Merton (The Ascent to Truth, p.107)

The mind can only be kept one- pointed in faith; and faith, without presuming to know the true nature of reality, is itself, darkness. Of course, it believes in certain concepts, but these only out of necessity. The contemplative aspirant seeks a veiled path, a journey through darkness sustained only by faith and illuminated only by reason. Essential to contemplation is meditation, and it is perilous to impose expectations on the experience of its practice. In doing so, the aspirant will strive to encounter his expectations (which are imaginary) rather than seek to be illumined by the truth (which is unknown). Expectations are biased and diminutive, but pure faith (composed of trust) allows for the most profound sort of transformation.

A man of faith will seek illumination by relegating the influence of his own biased intellect. We must remember, though intellect is the vehicle of reason, it is not reason itself; and the humble action that darkens the intellect with regard to spiritual reality is an act of reason. Reason recognizes the truncating limitations of the intellect and seeks a vital experience of reality beyond the intellect’s ability to comprehend. The more one can surrender the intellect (I do not mean abstain from its use), the more one- pointed the mind can be made. Pride of intellect always assumes it can structure knowledge into belief that is objective. Faith comprehends the folly of such thinking.

As one begins to understand the diminutive nature of his own mind and the sheer probability of error in personal reasoning, he cannot but have faith (unless he opts for madness). If he places ultimate truth within the reach of his own personal conceptions, his mind will never be one- pointed; for these conceptions about reality will shift day-by-day, being at the mercy of many forces (and reason isn’t one of them). Take note, I do not mean to say that we should replace personal conceptions of ultimate truth with doctrinal ones (though scripture is here for our benefit); rather, we must affirm that truth transcends the very realm of conceptions. The intellectual paradox here (and paradox for the intellect only) is that truth can still be gotten- at. Once the assumptions of the intellect are darkened through faith (and humility), the mind can be made one- pointed, directed at a destination neither perceived nor understood, but always groped for in darkness.

The Authentic Nature of Comprehension

The intellect plays a meager role in the comprehension of existential truth (good and evil, meaning and purpose). When such topics are presented (by renunciate and sagely men or women, ideally), the intellect will serve (as usual) to identify words and sort language into a recognizable structure; but it is powerless, of itself, to receive genuine insight. Of course, many suppose (fallaciously) that intellect is sufficient to fully comprehend any existentially concerned proposition.

By the seductive power of its vanity, intellect sets about the task of making reducible to its arbitrary interpretations, all potential truth. Vanity misunderstands the actual nature of comprehension. To a vainglorious mind (one obsessed with the “superiority” of its intellect), truth goes to the highest bidder: So long as your argument is fit to confound the perspectives of other men, you have a monopoly on truth. The irony of such ignorance is loathsome. Humility, on the other hand, recognizes that the truth or falsity of a proposition may be comprehended through genuine insight, and this through careful study of the proposition itself. A truthful (and therefore insightful) interpretation of human ideas will always be presented in the simplest way possible so as to aid the comprehension of any who would seek to understand. Humility, therefore, is immanently reasonable! And here it will benefit us to make a distinction between intellect and reason.

Intellect is implicit in the carnal nature of man, while reason is something of the kind that must be learned. Reason, therefore, is an objective measuring stick, up to which all propositions may be held. In the life of man, his intellect will either embrace its own subjective whims or the laws of reason. In other words, intellect is a faculty that one possesses and reason is a law to which it must submit, much like one would submit (despite his fancies) to the law of gravitation were he to walk off a cliff. Now if reason were contingent upon man’s intellect, its reliability would be undone; and this fact needn’t be empirically demonstrated, as man’s intellect has, historically, conceived of more absurdities than anyone would care to list. If then, reason (like truth), is not inherent of the intellect, it must be furnished by supreme reality. Affirming this, a spiritually-minded man (and make no mistake) would be justified in claiming that the exercise of reason is a participation in the wisdom of God. But I will touch on that point no further.

So what is our conclusion in all of this? It is merely that the vanity of intellect is often loath to submit itself before reason, but the insight of humility will readily do so. For each of us, it remains a vital necessity that we should (by grace) learn to be humble enough for insight to seize authority over our comprehension regarding existential truth. Let intellect recognize its rightful place in the caste, and reason be exalted through humility.

The Time for Truth

“Truth alone prevails, not unreality”
-The Mundaka Upanishad

It must be acknowledged that belief in truth is a kind of faith, but we needn’t acknowledge this sullenly. It’s a noble faith which assumes the existence of univocal goodness and compels oneself to recognize that he is but a part in the greater whole. It’s a faith marked by the assumption that human ideas (whether they be empirically demonstrable or not) are characterized by an alignment with either reality or unreality. The pursuit of truth must be an intentional process, free from the desire to egoistically reinforce one’s biases; that is, we must intend to be illumined by what we encounter on the path. Neither should we relegate the truth to knowledge attained in any one fashion. A baleful disservice is done to the maturity of one’s mind when the pride of intellect refuses to acknowledge its colossal limitations. Having embraced this universal wisdom, the spirit of enquiry becomes equipped to receive all kinds of knowledge; however, if once we resolve to approach truth with this sort of tenacity, we resolve in kind to undertake the discipline of looking inward. We must know ourselves.

To possess knowledge of oneself requires mindfulness. In addressing this topic, Rose Snyder, of The California Institute of Integral Studies, says “Many researchers have described mindfulness as promoting a ‘‘metacognitive’’ ability, in which the practitioner develops the capacity to observe her own mental processes…” (qtd. in Attachment Theory and Mindfulness 4). In gaining this capacity, it becomes possible to glean from ourselves knowledge regarding the motivations that rule over words and behavior. In short, through mindful disciplines and the self-awareness they afford, a measure of objectivity can be attained.

The ability to employ objective analysis can alleviate burdens that are immediate in nature. Here, Snyder (2011) is able to provide us with an example: “when an individual is having a difficult emotional experience, she can step back from the experience to see it clearly as simply an emotional state that is arising and will in time pass away. The knowledge of the impermanence of all phenomena can allow for a greater tolerance of unpleasant states of being…” (qtd. in Attachment Theory and Mindfulness 4). The benefit of this cognitive, self- removal can hardly be overstated. Reflection on one’s own being eventually annihilates the pains and truncation of a passive existence.

I believe it’s reasonably safe to assume, most people begin their adult lives harboring substantial amounts of conditioned bias. Living without regard for this recognition, many (myself included) will gain knowledge only for the sake of adapting it to their preconceived notions. Thankfully, mindful disciplines are quite capable of threshing out biases. In this way, knowledge gained may truly benefit one’s comprehension. In the sense I am here using, knowledge is synonymous with information; and in ordinary human experience, we gain information in order to reduce uncertainty. Ahmad M. Kamal, faculty of Information and Media Studies at the University of Western Ontario addresses uncertainty in the following way: “Within the domain of information behavior, uncertainty is viewed as a psychological condition resolved by access to appropriate information. Under this paradigm, uncertainty is a condition to be reduced if not eliminated, and better information services, increased accessibility of information, better-designed information systems, and improved search skills are—implicitly or explicitly—identified as the means to that end…” (qtd. in Addressing Uncertainty: When Information is Not Enough 1).

In this context, knowledge functions as the “cure” for uncertainty. Kamal consolidates this idea further by stating “The experience of uncertainty—internal or external—is in every case driven by a lack of knowledge. The important difference lies both in what is unknown and in whether it is knowable. In the case of internal uncertainty, the information seeker lacks information, and once they have accessed the appropriate information, their uncertainty can be resolved…” (qtd. in Addressing Uncertainty: When Information is Not Enough 4). Uncertainty gives rise to all sorts of personal anxiety, indecision, and shortcomings. By actively gaining testable knowledge, we pursue a basic solution to a common plague.

You will recall, perhaps, my initial allusion made to knowledge that isn’t empirically testable, yet still valid and illuminating. Largely, this sort of knowledge will be found in spirituality; and (I believe) sorely misguided are those who do not seek, in spirituality, some of the answers to life’s integral uncertainties. Human spirituality is varied in its beliefs (though I see curious unity in the variance); but I’ve found that, on the whole, it usually concerns itself with several recurring questions: Those of our Origin, Identity, and Destiny. The answer to these questions, if it be of the truth, would certainly transcend our personal contrivances. Therefore, we should orient ourselves only in reference to something greater than we know ourselves to be. Dirk van Dierendonck, of the Rotterdam School of Management at Erasmus University in the Netherlands, seems to be of the same opinion: “Spirituality signifies the inner attitude of living life directly related to the sacred…” (qtd. in Spirituality as an Essential Determinant for the Good Life, its Importance Relative to Self-Determinant Psychological Needs 4). This position should be advocated fiercely lest our worldview become destructively egocentric.

What then, is this sacred reality? What answer has been given to the questions of Origin, Identity, and Destiny? Look closely; there’s a curious nature about these questions. If we answer one, then we answer all. In the Ecclesiastical tradition (that of Jesus Christ) it is through God that all things were made (see John 1:1-3). In the Upanishadic (Hindu) traditions, the supreme reality is Brahman (known also as the “Lord of Love”) who is “the cause of the cosmos” (see the Shvetashvatara Upanishad). To Jesus, “God is Spirit” (see John 4:24), and Brahman is likened to “pure consciousness” (see the Aitareya Upanishad). Furthermore, in both Ecclesiastical and Upanishadic traditions we see proclaimed the same fundamental axiom: “The Earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it” (see 1 Corinthians 10:25-26), and “All belongs to the Lord” (see the Isha Upanishad). In orienting our importance in reference to the Lord, self-obsessive desires are discarded and we begin to exhibit concern for the needs of those around us, begetting the foundation of a reciprocal community. You may ask yourself, should such radical beliefs be taken seriously? Dierendonck (2011) certainly reasons as much: “Spirituality was already recognized as an important element of well-being in the 70s. Particularly, Moberg’s (1971) theorizing was instrumental in this respect. Spiritual well-being was interpreted as a lifelong pursuit and an affirmation of living life in direct connection to God, Self, the community and the environment. There is a growing body of empirical evidence that confirms the link between spirituality and wellbeing…” (qtd. in Spirituality as an Essential Determinant for the Good Life, its Importance Relative to Self-Determinant Psychological Needs 4). Like unto the very pursuit of truth, spiritual knowledge begins with faith. The validity of such knowledge cannot be tested under empirical conditions, but rather, must be recognized in the sincere goodness of a life lived selflessly.

It seems ironic that, through rational discourse, we’ve come right back around to our primary article of faith: That truth is transcendent to us, free from the subjectivity of human contrivance. In the end, many of our beliefs may prove to be mere contrivance; but the character of truth will have remained invariable. Mind, it is the invariability of truth that bespeaks of its infallibility. And when we, by egoistic or malicious agendas, attempt to misrepresent reality with arbitrary falsehoods, we suppress infallibility and introduce fallibility. It’s actually very curious that day to day falsehoods are perpetuated so much as we observe, given that it’s easier to accurately represent what we know to be true than it is to misrepresent; and according to Michael B. Lewis of Cardiff University, The United Kingdom, we aren’t meant to misrepresent it: “Our default communicative stance is to tell the truth. Without the assumption that speakers utter the truth most of the time, it is difficult to see how efficient communication could ever occur. This suggests that when people wish to lie to a question they will need to intentionally suppress the default, truthful response, which should increase the difficulty of lying relative to telling the truth…” (qtd. in Telling Lies: The Irrepressible Truth? 1).

Truth isn’t arbitrary, human lies are. Were there no such thing as unequivocal falsehoods, men could represent reality by relating whatever bile happened to slide off their tongues. As it is, the true nature of things must be suppressed when a conscious lie is told, and Lewis (2012) supports this claim: “There is indeed plenty of empirical evidence consistent with the claim that telling lies involves suppressing the truth. For example many researchers have found longer response times for lying relative to telling the truth, and there is neuroscientific evidence that brain regions active in lying overlap with brain regions associated with general response inhibition…” (qtd. in Telling Lies: The Irrepressible Truth? 1). In maintaining the truth out of an honest will, we rely on infallibility. Truth is the backbone of honesty, and is therefore existentially involved with good intentions. There is a great task left to us who are of good and noble ambition: to mitigate the influence of egoism in our world by eliminating falsehood. In this, we must always champion the truth.

cropped-img_0521.jpg

A Motif in the Likeness of Blaise Pascal, Thoughts

Morality

Unless there is an ultimate purpose life can be utilized to achieve, the only value one may ascribe to it will be arbitrary. Regrettably, the mind that resigns itself to the absence of true meaning will tend to forsake its nobler commitments in favor of sensual and idiocentric gratification. In this light, life becomes the pettiest affair imaginable.

The path followed in Christ’s wake is not a means to learned explanation, but a state of curative relationship.

Outward piety, if not a reflection of inner grace, is nothing but a narcissistic facade.

If we, as disciples of Christ, seek not the courage needed to edify the hearts of those around us, we attempt to pacify the spirit by way of mere congeniality.

Some may insist that anger is not involved with sin. I disagree. One must be of a mindful presence to evaluate his own shortcomings; and anger is an aggressive, reactionary presence that precludes mindfulness. In reconciling our faults to ourselves, the mindful state promotes patience: an attribute that never abides in the one who allows anger to remain near at hand. Instead of maintaining a peaceable mind by way of sapient consideration, a quarrelsome spirit invites provocation. An unwelcome thing will go where it isn’t resisted, which is why anger has always mothered senseless violence. It is outrage that cannot be counted among the vices of man. Outrage is an essential presence, arising in response to detestable things.

All suffering in the world (short of incidental calamity) is the result of people chasing after their own desires rather than seeking the will of God.

We as humans have somehow been lead to believe that we must take what we can get from others in order to prosper. It seems perfect irony that we should strive for a destructive conception of prosperity whilst taking frenzied steps in the opposite direction of true prosperity, which is born of reciprocity.

Each of us can be a ram’s horn of God, a fiddle to his melody.

Prudence

With help from the illusion of finality in death, we are tempted to believe only in those powers which are carnal. Ironically, these are the least among powers.

It is, for many of us, tempting to believe ourselves pyramids of reason standing among, comparatively, shanty-like fools. But reason is not, as the ego, implicit in man. It is something of the kind we must learn how to uphold. Largely, it is from people that we must learn; yet what does a pyramid believe it can learn from a shanty?

In itself, the pursuit of excellence is destructive and useless. Rather, when practicing a craft, let us pursue purpose, comprehension, and freedom. In these lie the true excellence that does not pretentiously call itself so.

It will rightly be considered baleful if an elderly person assumes belittlement upon any deviating perspective within a younger generation. It should similarly be considered baleful if a youth (I use the word broadly) assumes belittlement upon any deviating perspective within an older generation. If either party draws a line in the sand, the other will not need to draw a line of his own to render them divided.

There is no such thing as a profound word. Words, like any tool in the employ of inspiration, must be used to construct profundity.

Impose no expectations on a potentially beneficial experience. Discover what is, rather than despairing of what isn’t.

It is intellectually fashionable to speak of truth as being relative. It’s the irony of modern “enlightenment”.

Discipline is a striving against one’s impulses. Impulses are born of habit, and habit is formed through worldly conditioning of the mind and body. Through discipline, we consciously remove ourselves from the cycle of this unconscious passivity, which is precisely why discipline is necessary for cultivating personal knowledge of the Spirit.

We must believe in enlightenment without believing ourselves to be enlightened. We must believe in wisdom without believing ourselves to be wise.

A mind that dreads the deeds of tomorrow is a mind imbalanced. A mind that recognizes the opportunity of tomorrow is a mind within peace.

If one frets over a matter of ability, of course he will flounder, groping for imagined proficiency; but if matters vex him not, easily will the mind’s eye locate within what is needed or desired.

The expectation of hostility creates hostility.

The anticipation of a coming time slows its approach.

Conjecture

The only relevant imperative to the current natural order is survival. Therefore, we may rightly ask why morality bothers to present itself as an imperative to us. Natural selection concerns itself with the longevity of a species over that of an individual; for sex does not aid the individual in the preservation of its own longevity. And our species certainly doesn’t need to be moral in order to persist.

I see the past years’ time on a wheel. I do not visualize it, but I see it. And that is why “wheel”, although the best candidate among vernacular, is such a pitifully insufficient term. This brings us to the philosophy that material concepts cannot accurately represent what the rational coagulation of academia does christen “abstract thought.” Forthwith, the liberal arts are just those sorts of things that abstract thought will readily adopt, for the human mind can make of them whatever it pleases; and this is precisely what we call, creative imagination.

“Nothing” is just a word. The concept it indicates does not represent a true lack of existence. “Something”, to our senses, exists as matter and energy. Therefore, any substance that cannot be measured by our limited tools is “nothing” too our brain’s experience. That, however, would not somehow diminish the ability of an intangible thing to exist. But this is an inference of the mind: an oddity able to conceptualize realities seemingly beyond its own operations.

Necessity is on causation of habit. Necessary movements are fully programmed when memory no longer needs to be called upon consciously.

Each respective art it comprised of many devises that we may express ourselves in the utility of. But let us not mistake the devises (physical or conceptual) for the inspired thoughts themselves. We have created art, or “the devices”, in order that our thoughts, via the limited mediums of communication we comprehend, might be experienced after a meaningful fashion. All good art that we encounter is nothing more than a best-effort translation of the thing actually encountered by the artist.

Our current universe, we may observe freely, its properties, scrutinize. But it is impossible to know anything of the properties within further dimensions, what the Evangelic writers (St. Paul, etc.) termed “the Celestials”. Save a portion. There are several properties of celestial reality that exhibit themselves in human existence, and selectively, life abroad. These are: love, compassion, mercy, humility, trust, contentment, selflessness, honesty, joy, peace, relationship, perseverance, purpose, parenthood, and beauty itself.

Revelation

Previously I have scribed, “The path followed in Christ’s wake is a state of curative relationship”; so let us, for the sake of Christ’s body (the Church), define what a relationship isn’t. So long as our interactions with God conform to a reward-punishment model, only the illusion of a relationship will exist.

I do not believe that God measures us according to any caliber; rather, it seems he makes allotment according to purpose.

When another’s world falls utterly to ruin, we must be ones remaining who have not forsaken their suffering. That is when they will really look at our Christ.

We really share the Evangel, in its fullest measure, when we enter into the suffering of others, confirming through our service what we know and avow: that the sincerity, endurance, and humility of our servitude is born of life in God’s Spirit.

When in faith, we still the mind, God enters in.

We must be joyful in simply possessing the knowledge given us. In that, there is no pride of achievement; for we are enabled to share, pursuing the good of others, and not the desire to impress.

There are methods by which we will aid the process, but the end of self-renunciation is accomplished by the very purpose of The Spirit. It will guide us in faith.

We do not make achievements for God. We serve his purpose.

Pride is a robust source of fear; for we are often goaded(inwardly) to be fearful of failing to satisfy the subjective requirements of pride.

We’ve made the Gospel too much about giving the right arguments and not enough about embodying the truth, which is known only in Spirit.

Ministry isn’t a matter of trying to convince people they are wrong; rather, I’ve found it’s a matter of entering into their suffering and trusting God.

To give Divinity admittance, sometimes you need only remove yourself from the noise.

God our parent is not distant or even apart from us. He lives in our life, and suffers in our pain. He is in all and through all. He’s forsaken nothing.

In truly coming to understand the beliefs of others, in coming to reason or feel from their perspective, we come to better understand our own beliefs. Never resist the opportunity to understand.