A new essay for today, "Banana Belt," under Essays.  And here we have glorious summer at last!  FK   

Finishing Ursula King's book "Christian Mystics," she left the reader with the question: in what direction will modern times take the masses of humanity now that they are ever more a part of a world  society?  In an historic overview, we can see that the polyglot of beliefs in the pagan world of the Roman Empire had been weakened - through a degeneration of the initial impulses of those beliefs, and the diluting effect of a multicultural world.  Enter Christianity, initially banned  by the empire for its fervent refusal to accept other gods; then punished with death, forcing the most intellectual of adherents to turn to the wilderness for contemplation (the dissolution of the Alexandria school and subsequent diaspora of the Desert Fathers.)  And finally, the failure of strength of the old beliefs to hold against  the Christians, whereby Christianity entered its statist form, aligned with the powers that be - which held up until the reformation in Northern Europe and the development of the modern state in the 17th through 19th centuries elsewhere.  

We are now left with religions that are dwindling in importance and participation in all but the most hard-line of Islamic states.  Are we now at the point in which the Roman Empire found itself around the time of Christ?  Have the world religions lost their punch - their authenticity - through age and decay?  And has multiculturalism worked alongside to weaken them as well?  I think we would have to answer that in the affirmative.  But what awaits?  As King said, people in the modern materialist world are thirsting for spirit - but where will they find it?  Will it be revived in monasteries as Christianity was in the medieval times and during the reformation period?  Or will a more individualistic form arise, something akin to the Desert Fathers without the extreme austerities?  The author believes in the latter - that more individualistic forms of reaching God will spread and give life once again to the profound aspects of the old religions.  That is, that personal experiences of God will revitalize the old forms, perhaps discarding the chaff of former times to reveal the ever-true relevancy of the kernel.

I believe that she is, for the most part, right about this - that the true religions are not dead, but only need personal input - with some superficial but meaningful changes for cultural relevancy - to infuse them with life again.  But I could be wrong; it could be that the traditional religions have outlived their purpose and are in permanent decay, just as those of the pagan peoples of the Roman Empire were.  Their beliefs - not so much the anthropocentric myths of the Romans and Greeks, but those of the mystery (mystical experience) schools - at one time were the most profound expressions of the ancient Mediterranean world.  Their legitimacy could never dissolve, as they allowed the participants direct access to the Absolute, but their relevancy did to the masses, until they were incorporated into the beliefs and practices of the emerging Christian religion.  Perhaps, then, we will need a new bottle for the old wine - perhaps even a new prophet to help jump-start the new form; or perhaps, as some Christians think, a complete end to the old order in the form of an apocalypse and second coming.

The traditionalist thinker Frithjof Schuon, who I often refer to, believes in the latter - that is, that we as a world culture are spiraling down inevitably to a necessary collapse.  Just as a dilapidated building must be torn down for the new one, so he sees that present society must reach a point of no return before a rebirth, or rebuilding, can occur.  And it is inevitable.  This is so not because the old "True" religions are outworn, but that we as social beings are outworn.  We need, essentially, to discard our material beliefs before the truth of the old religions can shine for us again.  It is, then, not the old religions that have become irrelevant, but rather our world culture/society.

I am perpetually unsure about this - I am no prophet.  But King states a modern truism in her conclusion that is telling, which I repeat: " people are thirsting for spiritual revival in this age of materialism."  We might just pass this statement by, as it has been repeated so many times before - but look at it again; if we are starving for spirit, who exactly is taking it away?  Who is the purveyor of this materialistic age?  Is it some cabal, some secret society of Satan, enslaving us all?  Or is it ourselves? While our inner souls are crying out for spiritual contact, are we not heedlessly following the materialistic call of the modern era - with full will?  

This is the nut of the question for our future - are we being manipulated by an evil elite, or are we willfully following this path, our elite only being the most successful on this path?  If it is the former, I would think true (spiritual) religion will be revived; if the latter, no - only shreds and patches of incantations will remain to work as magical formulas for our health or good luck, something like what happened to the old pagan religions.  In which case, we will be in need of a totally new "building" to contain the ancient pathways to God, and then only after a collapse, something necessary for the new building to arise from the old.  

On that latter point, I have no doubt - if we are indeed willful participants in this "materialistic age," we will auger into collapse, for not only does man not live by bread alone, even the bread is only the material form of the spirit that gave rise to it.  Without acknowledging that spirit, we would be acting in the dark, wandering in a world blind.  We might stumble and survive for a bit, but sooner or later would fail, would stumble into the canyon, would fail to see the seed with which to plant our wheat.  In other words, without an understanding of how the world works in depth, we would inevitably, sooner or later, walk into the cul-de-sac.

But again, I am not sure; and even if we are being led by an evil elite, will they not in time convert us to their ways? Or is that what the next revival will be about - to turn from their lead and prevent the collapse that otherwise is inevitable?  In other words, are we alive enough to Spirit to break from the world's current pull, or is it too late and time for a major cleaning?  FK                                       

It was interesting to me as I continued to read Ursula King's book "Christian Mystics" last night that I found an 18th century English mystic who had much the same views as I on the subject - including the use of the words "spark" and "kindling" that I had put in the blog the day before.  His name is William Law, and if I had ever heard of him before, I would not have been able to tell anyone what he meant to the world at large.  Let me place a long quote from King's book to give one an idea:

"...the eternal Word is lying hidden within all human beings.  It is a spark of the divine nature which gives the soul a depth, center and infinity that he calls the hidden 'pearl of eternity.' ...Law stresses the primacy of the will.  When the human will turns to itself, it breaks off from divine harmony and falls into misery.  Self is the root, tree and branches of all evil...When the will is rightly applied in prayer, it can be effective in creating new life, for 'the prayer of the heart, the prayer of faith, has a kindling and creating power, and forms and transforms the soul into everything that its desires reach after: it...brings us into real union and communion with God.' "

I could not have stated my own beliefs better - that all humans have an element of God within (shared by the Buddhists and Hindus), that it is through our will to self that we have fallen from knowledge and witness of God (similarly shared with Eastern religions), and that (willful) prayer, or meditation, can kindle this eternal spark (again, shared).  It seems to me that I have come to Law's conclusions through a kind of 'back door', that of Eastern mysticism, to arrive at what he and others of his era had found through turning inward.  But this is not surprising - although I know that this is something of a tautology, if God is indeed sought in this manner, and found at least partially, then the success of the method, and the knowledge learned by this success, would be apparent to all regardless of one's religion - a nod once again to the Traditionalists who claim that there is an underlying unity to all true religions.  

That the individual contains this spark led Law's immediate predecessor, George Fox (who founded the Quakers), to conclude that personal sacred knowledge was more important than both creed and scripture, something that would have gotten him burned at the stake in Catholic Europe (and wasn't very welcomed in Protestant Europe).  In other words, if one were led to God by grace and personal prayer alone, then one's experience was more true than the second-hand accounts from a religion or holy text.  This was - and still is - a huge idea, and one that contains some dangerous turns.  It not only means that one does not have to depend on official religious authority to understand scripture, or to have one sin's forgiven, or to reach God in any way; it also means that one's interpretation is (or might be seen) as good as the next.  Which means it opens the doors for all manner of personal idiosyncrasies, including those of David Koresh of the Branch Davidians, whose bizarre and dark interpretation of the Bible led to the  numerous deaths at Waco, Texas. 

And so I am reminded - while the spark might reside within, there is still need for a standard to judge the insights that one might gain.  This is known to the Eastern religions as well, and embodied in the well-known being of the 'guru.'  While the guru can grant 'darshan' or special holy power, his real function is to help the seeker avoid the pitfalls that he will find within himself on his search for God (or the Absolute, Nirvana); that is, they well understand, as earlier Christians did, that one can be fooled, whether we call the deceiver Satan, demons, or the selfish will.  Thus the need for a true religion as a template, necessary for nearly everyone until they stand before the face of God and have no need any longer of interpretation.  And so it might be said that George Fox had the general idea right, but that he initially lacked something - something that I think the Quaker's found  as they became established into a group.

Going back to yesterday's blog again, how might this stand up against the ecstasy of the deadhead at a Grateful gathering?  Whether aided by acid or the drug ecstasy, or merely the music and vibes themselves, are we talking of a legitimate spiritual experience?  I would say 'yes,' for the "spark within" is lit, no matter how temporarily or artificially.  In fact, the context acts as something of an organized religion, guiding the experience towards community (something beyond the self) and a general feeling of love for all people and things.  And yet - there is a very strong caveat.  This form of experience is only the ice cream desert of the spirit, not the main meal.  As the hippies found in the 60's, this diet cannot sustain one for long.  Rather, one truly needs the ideal of renunciation (which Fox and Law had - making their ideas workable for them, and later, for their adherents) to make the spiritual insight lead to something more than an occasional treat.  And in renunciation comes humility, moderation, charity - all the traits recommended by the true religions.  And so Jerry Garcia's vibes do not get us off the hook; but if his genius has led one to feel the spark and feel the need to seek it further, he has done his job.  That is, his talent, given by grace, has done its job.  

Not to sound trite, but this leads to another truism in many Christian religions (I do not know about others concerning this): that we are all given a genius of sorts to positively affect others in their need to find the spark and bring it to flame.  What's yours, and are you using it?  A question I must ask myself.  FK         

                        

Back from a stay in the UP - an unadorned cabin without running water or electricity, miles from anywhere, perfect for the mind and for someone who doesn't have to make a living there.  For those who do, it would be better to move to the southern industrial lands where one can clink out widgets or print spread sheets in safe comfort.  Work there is often primary - cutting lumber or digging mines - dangerous, hard stuff in a hard climate.  

There is one guy up the are, though, who lives there year-round, solo, scraping by on fish and game that I presume he gets before four feet of snow blankets the area for 4 months.  Would I like that?  

While living with the Indians in the Amazon area, I would take a long nap in my hammock every afternoon along with everyone else, and then wake, bathed in sweat, wondering why the hell I was wasting my life doing this.  Why, real life was happening back home, passing me by as I grew older swinging in a hammock in the dull, thick heat.  But of course it was not passing me by anymore than it is right  here.  What was I thinking?  And yet I was.  In the UP, I get to feel that I am missing out on the lives of others I know - and perhaps that's it.  The real world consists of a world filled with people we know.  They make our world real just as we do the same for them.  It is not the landscape but the people who make reality, each his brother's keeper.  As such, one would think that we could change realities in much the way we change moods.  

Trouble is, we do not control our moods - but some can do this for us, and we love them for it.  The Grateful Dead kept the dream of the 60 acid hippies alive for generations of followers.  They had the power.  Charley Manson had another sort of power as he changed realities, and (not comparing him with these others in kind) so did the great religious leaders of the ages.  Perhaps people experienced miracles at Dead concerts.  I wouldn't be surprised.  Realities can be changed that much, or so we have learned from holy scripture as well as from such places at Lourdes. 

But from what I can see, making a living in the UP is just a tough slog.  It is far easier to meditate in a cabin with canned food bought in the flat lands than to catch it or pay for it with the efforts it takes up north.  For all but a few, rapture can only overcome gravity for so long.

Blaise Pascal (17th century) thought the very same.  In his collection of thoughts in Pensees, Pascal (taken from Christian Mystics by Ursual King) "dwells on the suffering and misery of the human condition, the 'inconstancy, boredom, anxiety of human life, immersed in ceaseless activity, faced with the inevitability of death.'  Our existence is held in tension between two poles: 'Wretchedness of man without God, happiness of man with God.' "  And this happiness is bought by the grace of faith alone, unmerited, through the heart. 

And it is true: what Pascal describes  from the 17th century is what our lives largely are today.  I will read Pascal in greater detail in the future, but from what I understand now, we can only pray and hope, pray and hope that such grace is given to us - the only compensation being that this is unmerited (and so we common folk are just as worthy), for no human on his own deserves the presence of God.  And yet...while the burden of life will inevitably affect all but a very select few, there will also be rapture and realization, and it can be bought, too; for millions, is was bought with money for a ticket to a Dead concert.  The money did not do the trick, of course: but was it grace that gave them such rapture?  To answer this, we might ask: was it grace that gave the Dead the ability to create this rapture?  

Yes.  Talent is given, not earned, and the greatest talent one might have is the ability to change reality, if even for a while.  But to appreciate talent is also a gift - why is one so affected by a certain art or scene while others are not?  This is also undeserved.  And so we might think that many of us, perhaps most of us (most probably), are born for rapture, for a prolonged ecstatic experience that takes us above the common reality of boredom and anxiety that we have created.  And also, that many of us - not as many, but not just a few - have the grace-given talent to so elevate others.  Yes, there are raptures and there are raptures - some of much greater meaning than others - but apparently we are made for it, and some made to be its conduit.  

And so, I would say that we are built for the experience; that we are not dead souls dependent on a spark that may never come, but are born with this spark and only need the right kindling to get the fire going.  For this, we must keep aware and open; for this, we must not put the wet leaves of weary skepticism on the spark, or hide it behind a sheet of dark fear.  We should understand that It is there, as I should have known in my hammock, waiting as the world passed by.  At that, I must also believe that the kindling was there in both worlds all along, for I have found much in this since, but I had not recognized it; and so it was my greatest task to understand this.  

Beyond that, we leave the other, the deeper, the gift of the spark, to God; not as a grace that might be doled out stingily to a few, but as our universal heritage, our mercy and our hope.  FK