Church of the Churchless

Back to basics: our faithless faith and commenting policies

It never hurts to return to the basics. So in this easy-to-write post I'm going to copy in one of the first posts I wrote after I started this blog in 2004, "Our Creedless Creed," plus this blog's commenting policies.

Regarding the latter, note that comments are supposed to stick to the subject matter of a post. I'm flexible about this, but today two commenters (UM and Nimfa) engaged in an almost entirely irrelevant series of eleven chat comments on a post about the RSSB guru's authoritarianism. 

That's unacceptable.

As you can read in the commenting policies, off-topic comment conversations should go in an Open Thread, which I call "free speech for comments." When people read a blog post, a newspaper story, or such, then click on the comments, they expect to find comments about the subject that's been written about.

Hijacking comments for purely personal purposes is a form of spam. Again, I'm fine with an occasional off-topic comment, and admit that I haven't been consistent in enforcing this rule, but don't be surprised if your comment is deleted if it doesn't pertain to the topic of a blog post.

Here's Our Creedless Creed. It's in the category of  "Basics of our faithless faith." I'm impressed that after 18 years of blogging, during which I've become steadily more atheistic, there's nothing that I would change in the creedless creed other than the last item. Currently I don't think it is likely that death provides any final answers. 

If you think that any of these statements are inaccurate, make your case in a comment on this post. That will be totally on-topic! I'll add numbers to the items to make it easier to comment on them.

UPDATE: I decided to add "any possible" before "immaterial reality" to make clear that currently there is no evidence of an immaterial reality separate from our universe. And I added "may" in the final item of the creed to make clear that if consciousness ends with death, as is very likely, getting any answer after death is low probability but still possible.

Our Creedless Creed

Note: to make this Creed more readable, some qualifiers have been omitted. So "God" signifies God/ultimate reality/final truth, not just a personal divinity. And "religion" signifies religion/spiritual path/philosophy, not just a mainstream theology.

(1) There is no objective proof that any religion knows the truth about God. If there were such proof, most people on Earth would have converted to that faith long ago and all scientists would be believers.

(2) Spirituality thus is an individual affair. Proof of any metaphysical realities that exist will be subjective, not demonstrable to others.

(3) Every person has the right to pursue their own spiritual quest without interference, so long as he or she doesn't interfere with the rights of others.

(4) Since the veracity of each and every religion is unprovable, equally unprovable are the moral and ethical tenets derived from any and all religious teachings.

(5) Thus morality also is an individual affair. There are no absolute laws of right and wrong as there are absolute laws of physics. Subjectivity rules in ethics.

(6) Individual ethical decisions may be formed into a collective codification of societal norms, or laws. These are purely human, not divine.

(7) Science is the surest means of finding truth. Theory, experiment, analysis of data: such are the tools of science, whether directed toward knowing material or any possible immaterial reality.

(8) Religious teachings are hypotheses to be confirmed through individual research. As such, they must not be taken as gospel truth by adherents of a particular faith.

(9) Religious doubters, skeptics, and heretics should be honored for their efforts to assure that unproven assertions about God are not put forward as solid truth.

(10) Every adherent of a particular religion should say to himself or herself, "I could be wrong." If he or she won't do this, other people can say it for them: "You could be wrong."

(11) This creedless creed of the Church of the Churchless also could be wrong. It needs to be reexamined and revised regularly.

(12) Death may provide the final answers (if only momentarily). The spiritual quest is to get answers ahead of time. But the big question is, "What are the questions?"

And here's this blog's commenting policies.

You're welcome -- even more, encouraged -- to leave comments on Church of the Churchless posts. Some of the most interesting writing on this blog comes from other people, not me, Brian the Blogger.

All I ask is that comments be in accord with the following policies. Otherwise a comment probably will be deleted or edited.

(1) No personal attacks on me or other commenters. Challenge the message, not the messenger. Best: You're wrong, because... Semi-OK: You're a fool, because... Not-OK: You're a fool.

(2) No extreme obscenity. Write as if you were in a congenial coffeehouse discussion group, not a high school locker room after your team lost the game in the final seconds. Mild swear words are fine. But goddamn it, don't go over the top.

(3) No rants about the uselessness of this blog. If you're a religious believer, I can understand why this blog could make you angry. Solution: don't read it. If you need to vent, leave a comment on my "I Hate Church of the Churchless" anti-site, not here.

(4) No commercial or religious spam. Advertising, in a comment or a URL, obviously isn't acceptable. Neither are lengthy quotations from a religious scripture, or preachiness. See #5 below.

(5) No irrelevant comments. Please stick to the subject matter of a post in your comment. If you want to talk about something else, leave your comment in an Open Thread, email me with a blog post suggestion, or use the Google search box in the right sidebar to find a previous post on this blog concerning your "something else." (Note: Open Thread comments also should adhere to the policies above.)

(6) No trolling. On the Internet a "troll" is someone who tries to disrupt normal discussions through various annoying behaviors. Here's some ways to recognize a troll. Best response to them: no response. Their sad lives thrive on attention, so ignore them.

(7) No false "facts" about critical issues. As the saying goes, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. This applies to this blog, especially about COVID-19 and other critical issues. Blatantly false comments won't be published if they're about life and death or other critical topics such as global warming.

Lastly, one of my pet peeves is how uncourteously many people behave on the Internet. "Flame wars" aren't productive, so try to keep your cool if you disagree with what somebody has said.

I agree with Wikipedia's take on Flaming: 

An Internet user typically generates a flame response to other posts or users posting on a site, and such a response is usually not constructive, does not clarify a discussion, and does not persuade others. Sometimes, flamers attempt to assert their authority, or establish a position of superiority over other users. Other times, a flamer is simply an individual who believes he or she carries the only valid opinion. This leads him or her to personally attack those who disagree. In some cases, flamers wish to upset and offend other members of the forum, in which case they can be called "trolls".

Mumbai dance team, The Kings, rocked it on World of Dance

OK, got to update my previous post about other-worldly dance performances. 

My wife and I just finished watching the second hour of Sunday's World of Dance show that we'd recorded. Wow!

The Kings, a group from India (Mumbai), won the senior team division and made it into the World of Dance finals next week with an amazingly powerful performance.

It was inspiring that one member of The Kings was injured in practice, yet resolved to compete in the performance. I believe he was the one who ended up in a wheelchair after the Kings performed.

They said the theme was an Indian myth about a half-man, half-lion creature. They sure brought that myth to life. Enjoy.

Other-worldly dance performances on World of Dance

I don't really believe there is a God of Dance. But after watching these other-worldly performances on recent episodes of World of Dance, I'm open to that possibility. 

Here's Briar Nolet, The Kings (from India), and Poppin John. I find Nolet the most amazing. She's a gymnast turned dancer who does moves that seem impossible. But they're real.

 

Same blog, new look

Hey, it's almost the end of 2015. New Year's is coming. Seemed like a good time to try out a new look for Church of the Churchless.

I've been wanting a design that was mobile friendly, since lots of people nowadays read blogs and such on their smart phones, tablets, and such.

I deleted a bunch of extraneous content, which makes for a cleaner look in my utterly personal opinion. I'll probably make some adjustments to the design, but it seems appealing to me. 

Lia Purpura's "Probability" poem

I came across a poem, "Probability," by Lisa Purpura in the January 19, 2015 issue of The New Yorker while reading in bed before I went to sleep.

I read it four times that night. More, since. 

I like it a lot. Not because I understand exactly what Purpura is trying to say. That's not how poetry works. Rather, it made me feel something about myself, and life, that rang true.

Something about how I place myself at The Center of Reality, viewing events from this oh-so-privileged perspective. 

The never-ending series of causes and effects that is this world comes my way, offering up something that makes me go Wow! This happened to ME!

But really, I suspect, it was just a happening. Wasn't about me. Or anyone, really. Just a happening. But I need to see it as "wild and rare." 

Because, as Purpura says, "what if it wasn't?" This would displace my specialness, leaving me as simply me, not ME!

Here's the poem.

Most coincidents are not
miraculous, but way more
common than we think—
it’s the shiver
of noticing being
central in a sequence
of events
that makes so much
seem wild and rare—
because what if it wasn’t?
Astonishment’s nothing
without your consent.

Once again, I praise a New Year's resolution of... nothing

I'm on a five-year nothing roll when it comes to New Year's resolutions. Of course, there's always something more to say about nothing, so I'll do just that after sharing links to my previous paeans to irresolution.

2010: "New Year's enlightenment resolution: nothing"
2011: "Don't make resolutions for the New Year -- just live it."
2012: "'Nothing' is my spiritual resolution for the New Year"
2013:  "Thanks, godless heathens, for a good blog year"
2014: "Brains are us: a fresh thought for a New Year"

(Yes, I managed to squeeze some thoughts about nothing into the 2013 and 2014 posts.)

This year one of my main sources of inspiration came early on, in January. That's when I belatedly discovered the magic of the "Let It Go" song in the movie Frozen. 

Today I fired up my post about the song and watched the video of that part from the movie again. I find it really inspiring.

 

Oh, yes. Let it go. Tell it like it is, Elsa. (Full lyrics are in my previous post.)

Couldn't keep it in, Heaven knows I tried.
Don't let them in, don't let them see.
Be the good girl you always have to be.
Conceal don't feel, don't let them know.
Well, now they know!

Let it go, let it go!
Can't hold it back anymore.
Let it go, let it go!

Wouldn't it be wonderful if our inner Me and outer Me were much more in tune than, for most of us, they are now?

Especially when it comes to religiosity, spirituality, the meaning-of-it-all. 

When we feel something deep in our hearts, yet act outwardly in a different way, that creates the tension Elsa sings about.

Can't hold it back anymore.

She's talking about the joy of authenticity and naturalness. Watching the video again and re-reading the lyrics, I was struck by how Elsa bears more than a little resemblance to a Daoist sage. 

Turn away and slam the door.
I don't care what they're going to say.
Let the storm rage on.
The cold never bothered me anyway.

It's funny how some distance,
makes everything seem small.
And the fears that once controlled me, can't get to me at all

It's time to see what I can do,
to test the limits and break through.
No right, no wrong, no rules for me.
I am free!

Let it go, let it go.
I am one with the wind and sky.
Let it go, let it go.

No right, no wrong, no rules for me.
I am one with the wind and sky.

What if we could see that whatever we are, whatever we have become, whatever thoughts and feelings we have, all this is the natural result of what had to be, because it is?

This isn't a fatalistic attitude. Just a realistic one. 

Sure, if there is something we want to change or improve about ourselves, we should try to achieve that goal. But not because of a worry that we risk God's wrath by failing to live up to the standard of some religious commandment.

And the fears that once controlled me, can't get to me at all.

So, yeah, let it go in 2015. Even if you feel like you've discarded past beliefs that were holding you back from expressing your authentic self, usually there's more to let go of. 

Until nothing but truth remains. Happy New Year!

South Africa: hello, hello? Can you access this blog?

A few days ago a regular Church of the Churchless visitor from South Africa emailed me, saying that she wasn't able to access this blog anymore. 

She's been looking into possible reasons. Today I got another message from her:

Hi Brian. So far I have ascertained that the site is blocked by 3 [Internet] service providers. My daughter who is with Telcom, our national telephone provider, government owned, is open.

Would you know if anyone else in South Africa is having the same problem? I'm still investigating but I'm finding it very disturbing. I really miss going on to the site. It was a ritual for over a year now, and very comforting to be connected with you all.

So if you live in South Africa, and you're able to read this, please leave a comment on this post indicating what ISP (Internet Service Provider) you use. That could help in figuring out what's going on. Or email me using the link in the right sidebar.

Below is how I described one possibility in a response to the person from South Africa.

This seems plausible, especially given what the woman said about "blocking," since I can see in the recent visitors map at the bottom of the right sidebar that some people in South Africa are visiting this blog, but seemingly not as many as before.

After a bit of Googling, I found that, according to Wikipedia, in South Africa hate speech is excluded from freedom of expression laws. Interesting. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#South_Africa

 

It’s unlikely my blog has been banned as being hurtful to religious sensibilities, but I suppose it is possible. The United States has very strong laws/constitution protecting free speech. I’ve been surprised when people from European countries have occasionally told me that something I’ve written wouldn’t be allowed in their country. So you should look into this possibility, as unlikely as it might be.

 

I also found this article about Internet censorship in South Africa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_South_Africa

 

It says that ISPs (Internet Service Providers) might ban a site if they get a complaint about it, to avoid the possibility of facing a legal complaint if they leave it up. So you could consider contacting your ISP and ask why you aren’t able to access my blog. 

Typepad downtime is over. My blog is back.

If you've been frustrated by not being able to access this blog during the past five days or so, join the club. Me too.

Typepad, my blogging service, was hit with a full-force DDoS (distributed denial of service) attack. It took them a long time to get their web site and associated blogs back up and running.

I don't believe in hell, but this would be a great place to send the jerks responsible for the attack. Reportedly they made a ransom demand to Typepad, which spurred an FBI investigation. 

Sorry to disappoint any religious believers who thought the Church of the Churchless had disappeared because of an act of God. It's temporary disappearance was because of hackers, who took down all Typepad blogs for a while.

A humanist explains how to be happy

Take three minutes and watch this video. It does a great job of explaining why, if you want to be happy, shunning religious dogma and embracing your own experience is the way to go.

 

"Let It Go." Great song. Great lyrics. Inspiring.

Almost 65 million people have watched the "Let It Go" song-scene from the animated movie Frozen. I came late to the You Tube party.

I'm sure glad I did. Found the video inspiring and uplifting, even though I didn't understand all of the lyrics. I suggest reading them before you watch the video, which I'll share after the lyrics.

The snow glows white on the mountain tonight,
not a footprint to be seen.
A kingdom of isolation and it looks like I'm the queen.
The wind is howling like this swirling storm inside.

Couldn't keep it in, Heaven knows I tried.
Don't let them in, don't let them see.
Be the good girl you always have to be.
Conceal don't feel, don't let them know.
Well, now they know!

Let it go, let it go!
Can't hold it back anymore.
Let it go, let it go!

Turn away and slam the door.
I don't care what they're going to say.
Let the storm rage on.
The cold never bothered me anyway.

It's funny how some distance,
makes everything seem small.
And the fears that once controlled me, can't get to me at all

It's time to see what I can do,
to test the limits and break through.
No right, no wrong, no rules for me.
I am free!

Let it go, let it go.
I am one with the wind and sky.
Let it go, let it go.
You'll never see me cry.
Here I stand, and here I'll stay.
Let the storm rage on.

My power flurries through the air into the ground.
My soul is spiraling in frozen fractals all around
And one thought crystallizes like an icy blast
I'm never going back; the past is in the past!

Let it go, let it go.
And I'll rise like the break of dawn.
Let it go, let it go
That perfect girl is gone
Here I stand, in the light of day.

Let the storm rage on!
The cold never bothered me anyway

 

I found fascinating the comment discussion on a perhaps purposely-provocative piece about the song/scene, "Let It Go."

It doesn’t veer into pole-dance territory until three minutes into the 3:38 video: that’s when the crown comes off, the hair gets taken down, and the queen transforms her perfectly lovely green gown into a sparkling, off-the-shoulders, breast-hugging confection that’s now got a slit up to her right thigh.

And Elsa works that skirt like a Victoria’s Secret Angel on the runway, swishing her hips with the exaggeration of a seasoned drag queen! Then comes the kicker, when we get a close-up of her formerly innocent face, now suddenly bearing a boatload of makeup — oddly jarring smears of bright rouge, deep-red lipstick and shocking-purple eye shadow.  

Why? Who’s it for? Why can’t Disney convey to its target audience of young girls the notion of female self-empowerment — even sexual strength, which I’m all for — without relying on the same tropes and trappings that it’s been using since forever?

Those were fighting words for a lot of women who had no problem with a strong (animated) woman being beautiful and rocking a tight dress.

Hey, neither do I. If a 65 year old man, moi, can be inspired by the movie along with 5 year old girls who have memorized all the words to the songs in "Frozen," seemingly Disney has a hit on its hands.

Check out the comments on the piece for a fascinating look into how passionate people can get about an imaginary character. Which, now that I think about it, isn't so different from a lot of comment conversations on this blog about religious topics.

Here's an example from commenter No Remorse:

Can I get a job writing articles for this place. I usually don't know what I'm talking about and apparently don't need to do any research.

She has makeup on in the first dress. The first dress does show a breast line, it's just that the dress goes up to the neck. Women and teen girls do have breasts. It's a biological fact. So why shouldn't a female cartoon character have breasts. Bugs Bunny had more pronounced ones when he dressed in drag.

Her hair is up in the first dress but then lets it down. Big whoop. It shows she is loosening up and becoming what she wants not what society thinks she should be (conservative). The second dress does have a lower neck line but is above her breasts. And the slit goes up to the knee. You can see her calf and knee. This is not the 1800's where anything above the ankle was obscene.

As for the makeup becoming darker she was the "villain" at that point and if you look at the history of female Disney villains they all had darker makeup to match their darker side. She was having an identity crisis at this point just like many young girls do trying to figure out where she belonged and who she was supposed to be.

As for her hips swaying in the second dress, prior to that she was running or spinning around. That is the first time you see her actually walk a straight line. Women's hips sway when they walk, that is another biological fact. They have wider hip bones then men do to allow for birth.

I wish I could get paid to write #$%$. I wrote this #$%$ for free.

Me too, No Remorse.

Check out "25 Ways To Feel Totally Fucking Awesome"

Most of the time I do feel totally fucking awesome. Now I know why. I'm into almost all of the awesome-feeling ways listed by Chris McCombs on his Hardcore Happiness site.

Some, though, I suck at. Like #20, Sleep. Chris advises 8-9 hours a night. My owl'ish wife and I usually only get about seven, often less. 

I'm also not so great at #17, Minimize. I've got too much crap. But I enjoy buying more. Books. Longboards. Crazy Shirts apparel. Sandals. I figure it's better than buying crystal meth, hookers, or fast food.

Here's some of my favorite tips for feeling totally fucking awesome. Read them all. The guy has an appealing writing style. Peruse his home page for more Hardcore Happiness musings.

22. Don’t Know

The deepest knowing, is the knowing of “I don’t know”

Ever noticed there’s no such thing as a happy Know-it-All?

Thinking we know everything, and trying to make other people realize just how much more we know than they do, is nothing but the miserable little ego trying to make itself all big and puffy. It’s a direct line to complete fucking misery.

True joy comes from living in the wonderment of it all, having the mind of a newborn, taking things in and staying away from labels, judgements and the dubious feeling of somehow being more of a person because of the shit you know.

To fully live and experience life in all it’s wonders is to slice open the filter of what we “think” we know, and come at life in each moment completely open to what the moment brings.

“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” 

Socrates

5. Accept

What Is IS. When we argue with IS we get our asses kicked, but only 100% of the time

Everyone’s life is crazy, chaotic and loaded with problems. EVERYONE’S LIFE

The circumstances of our life are never gonna be perfectly harmonious and chaos-free, with every duck in a row, every dollar in the bank, full of perfect health, happy relationships, kids all acting like little angels in the backseat as we hit every green light on Eutopia Highway. That’s just not reality.

If we wait for things to be awesome for us to feel awesome, we are fucked. We are all guaranteed our daily recommended dosage of chaos. To resist the circumstances of our lives and internally argue against things, brings massive amounts of stress and suffering

If we don’t like something about reality, the best thing we can do is accept it and either move on, or work towards creating circumstances more to our liking

Nothing outside of ourselves can make us happy, even Reality.

The way to true joy is through acceptance of What Is. To feel awesome on the reg, it is highly recommend you become an avid fan of Reality, even when it sucks

“Chaos was the law of nature; Order was the dream of man.”

Henry Adams

2. Move

Our bodies are meant to move, our pores meant to sweat, our muscles meant to contract and stretch, and our blood meant to flow.

Plain and simply, we were meant to mother fucking train.

I don’t care if it’s power-walking with fun loving Mabel, Gertrude and Marge; sweating to the oldies with Richard Simmons, bodyweight workouts at the park, yoga with a bunch of sweaty vegetarians, mountain biking, Crossfit, Jazzercise or heavy powerlifting sessions surrounded by guys with shaved heads, goatees and giant stomachs in a warehouse-style dungeon gyms full of all things heavy and gnarly

If you enjoy it, do it. If you hate it all, find the one you hate the least.

Due to injuries and just bouts of laziness, in the last 20 years I’ve probably been training for 16 or 17 of it and spent a total of 3 or 4 of it not doing any sort of training at all. A year here, six months there, that sorta thing. For the rest of it, I have trained.

During times of no training, I absolutely, categorically felt like shit. Agitated, sluggish and moody.

I realize sometimes it’s hard to pick up anything heavier than the television remote, the big one, ya know, the one that works for your TV, DVD player, Blue Ray, Nintendo and garage door

But if you just get up and get your ass to the gym, the workout WILL get done. You’ll feel a million times better, actually 1.38729 million times better, but I rounded down for the sake of simplicity

If you wanna train, but have trouble actually getting out the door and doing it, Do what I do, lie to yourself. And not just any lie, tell yourself ‘Big Chris’s Favorite Lie’

It goes like this: “I’ll just go do a few quick little light sets today, that’s all”

It works awesome! In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever ended up actually just done a few quick little light sets. Typically after the first few sets I’m fired up and gunnin’ hard. Many of my best workouts have been on the days I’ve told myself that little fib

And guess what? Almost everyone who trains has days they don’t wanna train, and many of them, just like me, rely on that little lie to get them into gear. And just like me, they have some of their best workouts on those days

Do whatever you need to make it happen

I don’t know how people go through their life without some sort of regular training. They’re a strange species, one which can easily be observed in any middle America town. Just go and have a seat at any mall or place where the Mid-West Beings gather and you’ll see what I’m talking about

Mounds of body fat concealing what can best be described as dead muscle tissue . Shoulders rounded forward, palms facing backward. They look like they’re headed off to a Star Trek convention.

Add in the look on their face of “If shit went down right now, I would not know how to defend myself from being eaten, so I better look as ugly and unhealthy to consume as possible” … filled with sloth meat, bitter depression and sour discontent.

That image right there keeps me training my ass off. That, and knowing how shitty it feels not to train.

Now I’m not always in great shape, in fact, I’m known to carry the extra pounds from time to time, like right now actually. But even when I’m drilling new holes near the end of my belt, I’m also training my ass off

Because I KNOW where sitting on it gets me, and that ain’t no fun

There’s something magical that happens at the end of a workout that can carry you through the entire day. Endorphins, serotonin, worked muscles, a clear mind and an unbreakable feeling of accomplishment.

“The Iron is the best antidepressant I have ever found. There is no better way to fight weakness than with strength. Once the mind and body have been awakened to their true potential, it’s impossible to turn back.”

Henry Rollins

 

"Beasts of the Southern Wild" -- what the movie means to me

Watching the last scenes of "Beasts of the Southern Wild" last night via a rented DVD, I was almost moved to tears.

When the closing credits came on I turned to my wife and said, "Wow. That was one of the best movies I've ever seen. So inspiring. So meaningful." She replied, "I didn't like it very much. Depressing. A downer."

Each to his or her own. Me, I'm recommending the movie highly. See it.

Decide for yourself how this amazing tale of a wise six year old, Hushpuppy, in a bayou town called The Bathtub speaks to you. Here's a few You Tube videos to whet your appetite. Or maybe make you feel, not my taste. 

The video below provides an overview of what the movie is about. It's got one of my favorite scenes. Hushpuppy is left alone by her father. No problem. She knows how to cook. And how to light the gas stove.

In an unconventional way. A way that will make overprotective parents cringe. 

 

This next video shows Hushpuppy, her father, and other denizens of The Bathtub before a devastating storm hits the area. They're preparing by... partying. Drinking and fireworking up, well, a storm. Beautiful. They are some of the "beasts" denoted by the movie title.

 

Aurochs are the more authentically obvious beasts. Very realistic in the movie. Didn't know they were actually enlarged little pigs, dressed up in auroch costumes. They represent power. Our power. Nature's power. Life's power. 

 

Like I said, "Beasts of the Southern Wild" speaks to different people in different ways. It's sort of a rorschach test of how we look upon the world.

Meaning, how you respond to the movie probably says quite a bit about your attitude toward wildness, dysfunction, chaos, rules, emotionality, self-reliance, self-expression, and a whole lot more.

I wouldn't want to live in the actual world Hushpuppy inhabits. I'm too attached to my civilized comforts. No sign of a computer, cell phone, or wi-fi in The Bathtub.

Also, pleasingly, no sign of organized (or even unorganized) religion, aside from a brief image of a cross in the midst of the wild drunken pre-storm fireworks celebration.

This is a story of people. Very human people. Flawed people.

People who laugh, cry, eat sloppily, drink alcohol a lot, care about each other a lot, live life a lot.

More than restrained, cultured, educated, "civilized" people divorced from nature, divorced from authentic feelings, divorced from the ever-present reality of shit happening for no reason other than that it does, unable to apppreciate the strong aurochian wisdom of the movie's oft-repeated mantra uttered after things go wrong, which I remember as "No crying! No pussies!"

Yet in the end, there is crying. But still no pussies (wimps). 

Strength: its a virtue. Especially when it springs from an embrace of our place in the natural world.

Life always goes on. The world always goes on. With us. Without us. Hushpuppy and her father understand this. They are wild beasts who haven't been tamed by civilization's attempts to look away from the fierce creatures and uncontrollable events always lurking within and without us.

I had a pretty problematic childhood, or rather teenhood. I suppose my mother (she was divorced; it was just me and her living together) always was an alcoholic. But her drinking became much more of a problem in my high school years.

So I could relate to the seemingly dysfunctional relationship between Hushpuppy and her hard-drinking father. I said "seemingly" because she hated him and she loved him. He was the best thing in her life and the worst thing in her life.

Cliche alert: what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. I got stronger from having to cope with my mother's weirdness. Even with a pillow over my head, I couldn't blank out the drunken voice that came from her bedroom next to mine, saying stuff that I didn't want to hear. 

Back then I didn't believe in God, just as I don't now. But I still prayed -- for a normal life, a normal mother, maybe even a normal father coming into my life, if God was so inclined. Didn't happen. At least, not in the way that I envisioned.

What happened was even better. I bent but I didn't break. I felt like I was on the edge of losing it (whatever "it" was), but I never did. I found strength inside myself that would have gone undiscovered if I hadn't been forced to dig so deep for a self-reliant place to stand.

Like Hushpuppy. Sort of. Just not to the same degree.

She is way beyond me when it comes to strength, fortitude, bravery. (Hard to compare myself with a fictional person, of course.) Still, my life experiences probably help explain why I found this movie so moving.

In the end, which comes to all of us, I held my mother's comatose hand as she died after suffering a serious stroke. She was the best mother that she could be, and I was the best son that I could be. Life doesn't get any better than that.

Here's some quotes from "Beasts of the Southern Wild." More wisdom here than in any holy book, for sure.

Hushpuppy: I see that I am a little piece of a big, big universe, and that makes it right. 

Hushpuppy: Everybody loses the thing that made them. It's even how it's supposed to be in nature. The brave men stay and watch it happen, they don't run. 

Hushpuppy: Strong animals know when your hearts are weak. 

Hushpuppy: The whole universe depends on everything fitting together just right. If one piece busts, even the smallest piece... the entire universe will get busted. 

Hushpuppy: They think we're all gonna drown down here. But we ain't going nowhere. 

Manti Te'o hoax: a deep desire to believe

Worth reading, even if you don't follow American football: "Behind Manti Te'o hoax about girlfriend lies a deep desire to believe."

Quite a few parallels to religiosity here.

At its root, this was a story about the deep need to believe. What complicates that is that it’s not clear whether Manti Te’o wanted to believe in a beautiful, fake girlfriend or whether we wanted to believe in him.

The impulse obviously isn’t unique to the Internet — the rundown of never-was frauds sweeps back decades, including “Tony Godby Johnson,” whose middle-aged creator hoodwinked legions into believing she was an AIDS-stricken little boy. But the Internet has made it infinitely easier. Witness the 2011 story of Amina Arraf, a gay female Syrian blogger who was actually a straight American man.

Lesson is, what someone says isn't always true. Claims require evidence. Yet often we want to believe a beautiful story. Even if it is an ugly lie.

Skateboard wisdom: loosen your trucks to live freely

I like preaching un-sermons here in the Church of the Churchless. My inspiration can come from any source, so long as it isn't -- ugh! -- a holy book or holy person. 

Today I want to praise the glory of loose trucks. 

Now, some of you reading this won't understand what the hell "loose trucks" means, especially if you're over thirty. Others, including ancient 64 year old me, will, because we've embraced the marvelous spirituality of skateboarding/longboarding.

Trucks are thingies that connect the wooden board to the wheels. They're what make it possible to turn the skateboard by shifting weight one way or the other.

Geezers like me who are recently into land paddling on a longboard, we like our trucks fairly tight. This makes the board feel more stable, since it doesn't move from side to side as easily. 

Or, turn as easily. And that's a drawback... if you want to do anything but roll along in a straight direction. And where's the fun in that?

As with life itself, every skateboarder/longboarder has to find a balance between feeling free to move in any direction and feeling secure while heading in a potentially risky situation (which, on a board, includes rolling downhill speedily).

It's sort of akin to following religious commandments or rules.

Doing so, a devotee feels safe within the bounds of his/her dogma box. That's like riding with tight trucks. Straight you go. Turning unpredictably, heading here or there, not going to happen very easily.

However, the more skilled a skateboarder/longboarder is, the looser his/her trucks can be. The boarder has developed the ability to handle the freedom of loose trucks. This article, "Loose trucks save lives," extols their virtue.

A basic idea is that when you can't easily turn and change direction, you're really limited. It's dangerous to be stuck in a straight line when either an opportunity to be embraced or a risk to be avoided comes into view.

Again, just like life.

Why stick with a religion, philosophy, or form of spirituality which isn't pointing you where you want to go? The looser your mental/emotional "trucks," the better you're be able to head in fresh desired directions. There are, though, some lessons loose skateboard trucks have to teach us.

Notably -- and I've already experienced this numerous times in my short longboarding history, during which I've progressively loosened my board's trucks -- on a steep'ish downhill looser trucks can lead to the dreaded "speed wobble." 

(This video is a good example, with the boarder not visibly hurt; of course, he falls out of sight.)

What happens is, at least this is how I've experienced it, small weight changes of your body from side to side get magnified at higher speed, especially with looser trucks which allow the board to tilt more easily. So you start over-correcting, over-shifting, over-moving in an attempt to stay centered on the board.

Anxiety plays a role.

You feel like you're going fucking fast. There's no brakes. You've got to keep moving along (once more, just like life) but you're getting the feeling shit, I could crash! And that makes you try even harder to control the wobble even though every attempt makes the wobble worse -- since the wobble is largely, if not entirely, caused by you trying to control what would go a lot better if you just relaxed and enjoyed the ride.

Expert longboarders can go down steep hills wobble free.

They stay relaxed and steady on the board, weight forward, calm and collected, centered and balanced. I've begun to get some glimpses of this on some small hills on my favorite longboarding trails. Doing less is doing more. 

I try (but not too hard!) to smile, relax, breathe, and just let the board go where it wants to go -- downhill.

So also say those Zen dudes who seem to know something about smoothly rolling along the road of life. I'm not sure whether Matt Rodriquez is into Zen, but he's definitely a dude. I came across a video of him talking about his Loose Trucks philosophy of both life and skateboarding. 

It's sick! (that's a compliment) I like the guy's whatever attitude toward both life and skateboarding. 

 

As young as Rodriguez looks to me, I gather he's a quasi-aged legend in skateboarding circles. Here's a link to a cool video I found of Rodriguez doing his thing around town back when. 

Watching the video, I thought "Great way to live." Carefree. Flowing. Daring. Breaking rules when it's OK to break them. There's a lot to like about a skateboarding philosophy of life.

Loosen your trucks. Then have fun carving on those hills of life. 

Extra-terrestrial meets an open-minded human

A regular blog commenter, "cc," sent me these thoughts recently. I enjoy writing like this: something I can read several times, and not exhaust the thoughtfulness contained therein.

Reminds me a bit of Chuang Tzu's useless tree. 

When the extra-terrestrial alights on Earth it says to the first human it encounters, "Take me to your leader", because it sees immediately that the human is not intelligent enough to live an unauthorized existence. 

It is obvious to the extra-terrestrial that the human's slavish dependency on its knowledge renders it ignorant of the need for an open mind; that because it can't allow for what it doesn't recognize and can't comprehend, it can't think or act "outside the box", as the earthlings say.

Eventually, however, the extra-terrestrial does encounter an open-minded human.

But what it sees is that this human is the most useless, powerless human on the planet because, having no leader and no followers, it is virtually alienated from its fellow human beings. Ironically, the extra-terrestrial and the open-minded human are more closely related than most humans are to each other.

Blog praise and nonduality criticism I agree with

Whenever I get an email from someone about this blog that has a first line with "love it," I'm inclined to agree with the rest of whatever is said. In this case, I have good reasons.

Nicely said, dude. Just enough profanity to emphasize your points. Here's the guy's message, mildly edited to correct some spelling.

I was just snooping around your site and gotta say..LOVE IT...I did manage to stumble across it a few years ago, but managed to turn a blind eye cause i couldnt have anyone fucking with my nonduality delusions..he he he..all these spiritual traditions are just escapes man!

Escapes from the havoc we wreck with our own minds or the bs instilled in us from other minds..lol..advaita is just as stupid as any fundamentalist religion and i should know being that i was a part of both at one time or another! People dont want the truth they want denial!

Those nondual teachings are worthless and all those fucks sound the same just like mormons and born agains do! Please... they live in concepts and deny their minds and bodies as if they're something different..oops sorry pussys, better to just take it like a man..everytime i hear someone say the world is an illusion i wanna slap em and ask em "is that really so"!

Or everytime they say that they are not a body not a mind is when a good kick to the nuts may be in order..fucking charlatans..though i gotta give em points for hustling money from people's superstitions and fears. Anyhow keep doing what you doing...

Open Thread 10

It's been a while, but Open Thread has been resurrected. I've been getting comments that didn't fit with an existing post, so further off-topic comments should go in this post.

So here's another Open Thread (previous OTs are still open, of course). Leave a comment about anything you want to talk about.

I've put some recent off-topic comments here, to start it off, instead of the posts they were left on.

Comments on other posts need to be related to the subject of the post, or they will be candidates for deletion. So an Open Thread is the place for miscellany and whatever. Feel free. Just observe the comment policies (click on "comment policy" above).

Kumare: a true movie about a fake guru (but aren't they all?)

I'd seen a Stephen Colbert interview with the director and star of Kumare, Vikram Ghandi, a movie about an Indian guy who pretends to be a guru. Not surprisingly, he fools a bunch of Americans.

But I hadn't watched the intriguing two-minute trailer, until someone emailed me a link. (Thanks, Tej.) Have a look.

 

Kumare is on my Netflix list. Or maybe it'll come to our local independent movie house. I loved the Borat movies, but now Sasha Baron Cohen is too well-known to be able to pull off his impersonation stuff. 

Vikram Ghandi, though, succeeded. Heck, I bet some people still want to be a follower of him, even after he admitted his fake guru-ness. The urge to believe is so strong, gurus always will have adoring audiences.

Aging is upward ascension of the human spirit

As an old geezer respected elder who now is on the Social Security gravy train, I'm always on the lookout for reasons to look upon age 60+ as the "golden years."

Yes, right now I'm enjoying life.

But at the beginning of the video below, Jane Fonda correctly says that our culture has tended to look upon aging as the downward cycle of a human lifespan. From middle-aged vigor, it's a steady slump into decrepitude.

Fortunately, her central eleven minute message is a heck of a lot more positive. Bodies may decline in various ways, but the "spirit" (which I don't view as metaphysical or supernatural, and Fonda doesn't speak of it in this way either) is on a rising staircase.

Not to heaven, most likely. Toward increasing wisdom, happiness, satisfaction, contentment, creativity. Heaven on earth.

Have a look. My wife emailed me a link to the video this afternoon. I watched it when I got home and then wanted to share its uplifting theme -- for young and old alike.

Got to share some poetic hate-mail insults

I've got to give credit where credit is due: one of my most avid non-fans does come up with some marvelously creative (and alliterative) insulting comments. 

Often these go into a Typepad spam filter, where I just discovered some heretofore unnoticed gems.

Usually I ignore hate mail, but these communications struck me as possessing an admirable "Howl" style (Allen Ginsberg's classic poem) and deserved to be shared with a wider audience.

why you such a two bit second grade hypocritical coward you miserable little runt eyed prat, what you so goddamn chicken about you pitiful little two faced rat? You a typical two faced insincere coward who is too cowardly to face any facts.. Lemme tell you how its gonna cut you cowardly little pitiful prat... reality gonna dawn on you so hard you gonna bust apart and cry big tears like the little chicken arsed two faced unscrupulous insincere back biting coward you are.

about time this pseudo psycho asshole derelict dimwit dumb ass Hines got down from his self made defunct cocoon of ignorant denial driven disillusionment and opened up his defunct derailed brain and let a little bit of open minded light into his dark cavernous debauched brainwashed bullshit baffled bewilderment.

you churchless chump morons think you clever, the entire gamut bang shoot of you churchless anti RSSB champing clowns are decidedly and absolutely stupid... and it shows...

The author of these messages, of course, considers that he/she is not decidedly and absolutely stupid. I'll leave it to the reader to determine where the balance of stupidity falls most heavily.

Open Thread 9

It's been a while, but Open Thread has been resurrected. I've been getting comments that didn't fit with a recent existing post, so further off-topic comments should go in this post.

So here's another Open Thread (previous OTs are still open, of course). Leave a comment about anything you want to talk about.

Comments on other posts need to be related to the subject of the post, or they will be candidates for deletion. So an Open Thread is the place for miscellany and whatever. Feel free. Just observe the comment policies (click on "comment policy" above).

I get mail: an "Atta boy" and a "Come home"

I enjoyed an email message from Tamara so much, I asked her if I could share it in a blog post.

Her OK reply was equally enjoyable: "By all means, Brian, throw my golden prose onto the godless telegraph. ha. My opinions are always liberally (double meaning) expressed to everyone within earshot--or email. Accreditation is no prob." Here's her message:

Brian, baby,

LOVE LOVE the Oct. 12 "God is too good..." piece. At last, a kindred spirit in this religion-soaked world.

My opinion of god is, if we entertain the premise of that existence--he/she/it does not DESERVE my worship. This crap about omniscience and higher plans for us all, knowing all the sparrows etc. is as u so eloquently say, "wish fulfillment through unfettered fantasy." (I think I found a bumper sticker for my '51 Buick!) 

Until god does a better job  -- or shows the slightest inkling --  to clean up evil, injustice, cruelty, ignorance, malice, war, poverty, starvation, waste, and other assorted misery, I am not onboard the adoration train.  (Now, Mother Nature, we're pals. There's the domain of artistry, beauty and for me, peace and appreciation.)

Well, I could rant on, but I'm using the faster computer at the library while my steam-powered one at home rests, and my time is limited.

Just saying, "Atta boy," & I'll wade through your considerable other writing with anticipation as time allows.

Thanks again.

Another faint voice in the wilderness,
Tamara 

I also recently got an email with a considerably different tone from someone who urged me to return to the Radha Soami Satsang Beas fold. My initial reaction was, hey, I'm not "far left." I'm middle of the road. But the right has gotten so much righter in the United States, they've redefined what "moderate" means.

We are probably the same age- I turn 65 in December. We were both initiated in 1971. You were a devoted disciple for 30 years, and I mostly ignored it. But, I have come home, with great enthusiasm. Sawan Singh said once that the Master is interested in cleaning the cloth (the disciple), either gently through Satsang, or more firmly, by beating against the rocks.

I was beat against the rocks.

When I die I hope to be taken to Trikuti where I get to meditate for lots of eons-I have a lot of karma to burn up.

I see you have become a far left activist. I like to sit at home, do as little as possible, and read my library of SRSS books.

You should come home.

Radha Soami

Well, each to his/her own.

Seven years ago, after I registered the "Church of the Churchless" domain name, I wanted a tagline to put under this blog's name. It took me about two seconds to come up with Preaching the gospel of spiritual independence. Since, I've never had a desire to change it.

Religious believers don't bother me. What bugs me are people who want me to believe as they do, but without providing any good reasons for their chosen beliefs. "Just have faith" doesn't cut it for me any more.

Regarding Tamara's email message, re-reading her comment about God needing to do a better job with starvation, war, and other earthly nasties reminded me of similar sentiments expressed by physicist Leonard Mlodinow in a chapter I read today in "War of the Worldviews," where he's responding to some New Age'y notions of Deepak Chopra.

Deepak wrote that we humans are "the growing tip of the cosmos, the fresh spark of life being pushed forward by all that exists," and that the universe is loving through us, creating through us. He says that "to accept the spiritual life of all," that truth must be real for us.

In taking the view of science, and rejecting Deepak's version of spirituality, I sometimes find myself feeling like the haggard and unshaven Humphrey Bogart sending away beautiful Ingrid Bergman at the end of Casablanca, offering up my cold, calculated assessment that the problems of us little people -- and our feelings -- don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy universe.

But if Deepak is right about a universal consciousness, and that the universe is loving through us, then it must also be hating through us, murdering and destroying through us, doing all the things that humans do in addition to loving, including the acts that blew up my mother's faith in God [losing her family in the Holocaust]. Deepak avoids talking about this dark side, but if the universe is working through each of us, then this universal connection must be a double-edged sword.

Though I believe in neither the God of the Bible nor the immaterial world Deepak advocates, I don't agree with him that to embrace the scientific view is to turn my back on spirituality.

Ditto, Leonard.

One million pageviews. Thanks, blog visitors.

Kind of fitting. It's Memorial Day here in the United States. And today this blog passed a memorable milestone: one million pageviews. 

Feels good. Thanks for the good feeling, blog visitors.

There's something about a million that's, well, substantial. Not that my ego cares about this meaningless stuff, of course. My many years of meditation have brought me enlightenment and ego-loss.

Also, delusions. 

Keith Moon's spontaneity vs. George Bush's certainty

I don't know whether The New Yorker does this on purpose (probably not), but sometimes an issue has a marvelous juxtaposition of articles that casts a spotlight on a Big Important Question.

Like, how best to live one's life.

After belatedly reading the November 29, 2010 issue, one approach to charting our general life course is to ask, "Would I rather be like Keith Moon or George W. Bush?" Moon was the drummer for the Who. Bush was the president of the United States.

Wildly different professions. Also, wildly different personalities -- which is my focus.

Moon, as befits his last name, was way out there. Bush, solidly down to earth. Moon was highly spontaneous in his drumming. Bush, on the other hand, hardly ever changed course after he made a decision.

Reading James Wood's "The Fun Stuff: my life as Keith Moon" made me realize that while I wouldn't want to die at thirty-two from a drug overdose like Moon did, in other respects his attitude toward music and living is pretty damn appealing to my churchless non-soul.

Some excerpts from this interesting article:

The drummer who was the drums, when I was a boy, was Keith Moon, though he was dead by the time I first heard him. He was the drums not because he was the most technically accomplished of drummers but because his joyous, semaphoring lunacy suggested a man possessed by the antic spirit of drumming. He was pure, irresponsible, restless childishness.

...There is no time-out in his drumming, because there is no time-in. It is all fun stuff. The first principle of Moon's drumming was that drummers do not exist to keep the beat. He did keep the beat, and very well, but he did it by every method except the traditional one.

Drumming is repetition, as is rock music generally, and Moon clearly found repetition dull. So he played the drums like no one else -- and not even like himself. No two bars of Moon's playing ever sound the same; he is in revolt against consistency. Everyone else in the band gets to improvise, so why should the drummer be nothing more than a condemned metronome?

...His merry way of conceding this was his now-famouis remark "I'm the best Keith Moon-style drummer in the world."

...From this exuberance emerges the second great principle of Moon's drumming; namely, that one is always performing, not recording, and that making mistakes is simply part of the locomotion of vitality.

Sure, there are rules in music, as there are rules in life. If Moon had played entirely in accord with his own inner drummer, he never could have been part of one of the greatest rock bands ever.

Likewise, doing whatever, whenever, however we want to will lead us into jail, a mental hospital, or the poor house (maybe all three). But I see Keith Moon as pointing in the direction of a truth that religions don't want us to recognize, because it threatens their existence:

Rules are made to be broken. Living life fully means sometimes going over the edge, because that's where fullness takes us.

A few pages further on in the same issue, there's a book review of George W. Bush's Presidential memoirs. George Packer's article is called "Dead Certain," for good reasons.

Bush has no tolerance for ambiguity; he can't revere his father and, on occasion, want to defy him, or lose charge of his White House for a minute, or allow himself to wonder if Iraq might ultimately fail.

...Here is another feature of the non-decision: once his own belief became known to him, Bush immediately caricatured opposing views and impugned the motives of those who held them.

If there was an honest and legitimate argument on the other side, then the President would have to defend his non-decision, taking it out of the redoubt of personal belief and into the messy emprical realm of contingency and uncertainty.

...During the war years, Bush fell in love with his own resolve, his refusal to waver, and this flaw cost Iraqis and Americans dearly. For him, the war remains "eternally right," a success with unfortunate footnotes.

Each of us has a bit of Keith Moon and George Bush within ourselves.

We seek to find a balance between our spontaneous wild child and our disciplined sober adult. Religiosity, by and large, casts its lot with the sort of steadiness, unchangingness, and certitude that Moon disdained and Bush embraced.

Day by day, moment by moment, we can choose which aspect to cultivate. All I can say is that I'm drawn to Keith Moon's archetypal manic energy much more than George Bush's "stay the course" steadfastness.

Have a look and listen. See if you feel the same. This is Moon on an isolated drum track.

 

And here he is with his fellow rockers on the classic "Who Are You?"

 

Open Thread 8

It's been a while, but Open Thread has been resurrected. I got a few comments that didn't fit with a recent existing post, so it seemed fitting to give them a home here to start the OT 8 off.

Here's another Open Thread (previous OTs are still open, of course). Leave a comment about anything you want to talk about.

Comments on other posts need to be related to the subject of the post, or they will be candidates for deletion. So an Open Thread is the place for miscellany and whatever. Feel free. Just observe the comment policies (click on "comment policy" above).

Churchless potpourri

I've got some interesting links floating around my email inbox, thanks to blog visitors who wanted to share some churchless info. Also have a few other cyberspace-inspired thoughts floating around my psyche.

Might as well toss them all into a potpourri post...

-----------------------------------

Wow! How did the United States ever come out victorious in World War II without having "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Makes me wonder why every president now finds it necessary to say May God bless the United States of America at the end of his State of the Union speech. (Thanks for sending the You Tube link, Robert.)

 

-----------------------------------

An India-based spiritual/mystical organization, Radha Soami Satsang Beas, has an outpost at an estate in Haynes Park, England. The RSSB guru is supposed to be God in  human form. Yet lightning struck the Haynes Park center last summer. Could this be a sign from the real God? (Thanks for the link, Amrat.)

-----------------------------------

Great... I thought my biggest problem was trying to lose a couple of pounds that I've gained recently. Now, thanks to an email from Bob, I've learned: "Prayer Warriors and Palin Organizing Spiritual Warfare to Take Over America."

Imagine a religious movement that makes geographic maps of where demons reside and claims among its adherents the Republican Party's most recent vice presidential nominee and whose leaders have presided over prayer sessions (one aimed at putting the kibosh on health-care reform) with a host of leading GOP figures.

...NAR's [New Apostolic Reformation] videos, according to researcher Rachel Tabachnick, "demonstrate the taking control of communities and nations through large networks of 'prayer warriors' whose spiritual warfare is used to expel and destroy the demons that cause societal ills. Once the territorial demons, witches, and generational curses are removed, the 'born-again' Christians in the videos take control of society."

Well, Oregon has so many churchless heathens, demons, and witches, I'm probably low on the list of Prayer Warrior targets. But it's cool to imagine my house being on a map of "where demons reside."

-----------------------------------

On the positive side, vampire writer Anne Rice has rejected organized Christianity (note: so far as I know, she isn't a vampire, but merely writes about them).

The author Anne Rice, best known for her vampire novels, made waves last week when she declared on her Facebook page that she had “quit being a Christian.” Twelve years after her return to Catholicism, Rice said she still believed in God, but that, “In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life.”

Uh-oh. I think I know a well-known author who has just gotten herself on the Prayer Warrior radar.

-----------------------------------

This is a moving mini-movie about a meteor who comes to grips with his/her inevitable fall to earth. We're all going to meet the same end: fallen. I liked how Mr./Ms. Meteor handles the journey.

Fallen from Sascha Geddert on Vimeo.

-----------------------------------

The Center for Inquiry announced the winner in its Campaign for Free Expression Video Contest. Nicely done. Blasphemy must be protected along with religiosity.

 

Cool new sharing/search bar

When you scroll down the page, you'll see an Apture site bar appear. It's pretty cool. Highlight a word or words. Click on "search." You'll get results from my blogs, Wikipedia, Google, You Tube, Amazon, and more. Web sites found via a search can be browsed from within this blog (though other blog posts on the subject open in a new tab; also in Firefox for some reason). Close the browsing window by clicking the "x" and return to the post you were reading. Share a post via Facebook, Twitter, or email by clicking on the site bar icons. Enjoy.

The spirituality of "Avatar" (the movie)

My wife and I saw "Avatar" last night in all of its 3-D, Dolby Digital glory. I loved the movie. It inspired me politically, but Avatar's spiritual message is even more powerful -- and more universal.

I mean, right-wingers don't like the movie's anti-corporate, pro-environmentalism theme. But who doesn't resonate with the all is one philosophy of the Na'vi, the indigenous people of Pandora whose beautiful earth-like moon is threatened by human invaders seeking a precious mineral, Unobtainium. 

Even a Christian minister could get behind the Na'vi nature-based spirituality.

The Na'vi (per Indigenous tradition) are incredibly spiritual, sharing a connectedness hard to describe. The sehalo bonds they establish with the creatures and the environment on Pandora prove this connectedness--a connectedness that implies interdependence i.e. the rejection of the cup running over due to sinful pride.

It's interdependence that defines our togetherness, our teamwork; our collective contributions to the whole, which is greater than the sum of its individual parts.

Well, praise be, brother.

This churchless blogger agrees with you and similarly resonates with the intimate connection the Na'vi have with Pandora -- which is personified (perhaps) as Eywa. 

I threw in the perhaps because it wasn't clear to me whether Eywa is viewed by the Na'vi as (1) a separate being who interpenetrates everything and everyone on Pandora, or (2) as the interconnected totality of everything and everyone on Pandora.

These trivia items on a Eywa wiki site mostly seem to point toward (2), which would make the Na'vi pantheists, "All is God". (The last item is an exception.)

• Eywa is very similar to many of Earth's deities, such as Jörð in Norse mythology who is the personification of the Earth, and is even closer to the Native Americans' religious views of the planet being one living entity.
• The Tree of Souls grants the Na'vi access to the psychic essences of their deceased, which is how the Na'vi communicate with their ancestors. The roots of the trees are capable of extending above the ground and connecting to the nervous system of any living thing, even humans. That's how Jake's consciousness was transferred to his Avatar.
• Eywa has been compared to Gaia (Gaea), Mother Earth, Mother Nature or God by those trying to explain the relationship between Eywa and the Na'vi. The Gaia hypothesis follows on that the entire biosphere acts like a single organism or at least a complex system (soft Gaia), or that the Earth is consciously manipulating the biosphere in order to make conditions more favorable to life (hard Gaia).
• Eywa's embodiment as plant life may be a reference to Yggdrasil, The Tree of Life, a holy embodiment in Norse mythology. Yggdrasil is a tree, said to be the root of all life, sent to keep the natural order of life on Earth.
• Eywa is also similar to the Norse god-king Odin in title. Odin is known as the All-Father, whereas Eywa is known as the All-Mother.

When Jake (a human who has been mind-melded with a Nu'vi body and taught Pandoran ways by the sexiest tall blue creature with a tail in cinematic history, Neytiri) tries to call on Eywa for help in a battle, I recall Neytiri getting irked at him, which implies that Eywa isn't seen as a separate being who responds to "prayers."

This also points toward pantheism, a philosophy favored by scientific types like Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking, which probably currently is my basic worldview as well since it fits nicely with my Taoist leanings.

However, Jake's petition to Eywa appeared to be answered by some ferocious Pandoran wildlife.

Such could be seen in a personal sense -- an all-encompassing divinity leaps into action after remaining aloof from the fray for a while -- but it also could mean that since Jake's consciousness is part of a seamless Pandoran web of life, his fervent desire to save the planet-like moon helped arouse the other creatures to join the battle.

This review lists various spiritual lessons of the Na'vi. A few point toward Eywa being a personal being, but most do not. Yet a thoughtful piece by Jay Michaelson on "The Meaning of Avatar" comes to a somewhat different conclusion.

Roughly speaking, Avatar's Na'Vi subscribe to a combination of pantheism and theism, a view scholars today call "panentheism." As scholar of religion Gershom Scholem observed, panentheism is usually rooted less in faith, as the New York Times's Ross Douthat said, than in experience.

Like mystics here on Earth, the Na'Vi have an experience of unity of consciousness with other beings, all of which (themselves included) are really just manifestations of one Being, which they call Ai'wa. Unlike Earth-bound mystics, the Na'Vi have a convenient plug, attached to their bodies, which physically unites them to other beings (such as steeds, winged or otherwise) and to Aiwa Herself/Itself.

Well, this is a defensible interpretation of the movie, especially since there are some emotional scenes near the end where throngs of Na'vi are swaying back and forth in unison at the Tree of Souls in what sure looks like a ritual aimed at a divine being.

Michaelson, though, has written a book (which, naturally, he plugs in his piece) called "Everything is God" which promotes a non-dual version of Judaism -- that's a creative idea, Jay.

The book description says, "In this nondual view, everyone and everything manifests God." Thus this seems to be a panentheist perspective: God interpenetrates every part of nature.

Michaelson thus might have a bit of a vested philosophical interest in pushing his interpretation of Na'vi spirituality.

First, the Na'Vi are panentheists, not pantheists. In a crucial moment in the film, our hero Jake Sully prays to Ai'Wa, and She appears to answer, in the form of swarms of birds, dinosaur-like creatures, and other forces of nature who work together to defeat the technologically-advanced human invaders. (The sequence is not unlike the Ents defeating Saruman in The Two Towers or the creatures of Narnia defeating the humans in Prince Caspian.) Strict pantheists like Spinoza would never pray to Being. Indeed, the Na'Vi princess Neytiri scolds Sully for doing so, and I myself clucked my tongue a bit when the Na'Vi started swaying and chanting; it kind of confuses the issue.

But panentheists do pray. They pray all the time. Ramakrishna, the 19th century Hindu sage who, through his disciple Vivekananda, is more responsible than any other individual for the popularization of nonduality - from obscure Vedantic texts to best-sellers by Eckhart Tolle and Deepak Chopra - was both a nondualist sage who believed that All is One, and a devotee of the "Divine Mother" who prayed to Her every day. The Baal Shem Tov and other early Hasidim believed that everything is God, but they also prayed to God as if separate from Him. Rumi and other Sufi poets experienced unity, but also loved yearning for the love of an often-distant Other.

Hmmmm. I still think it's an open question whether the Na'vi are more akin to Deepak Chopra and Eckhart Tolle than Spinoza (god, I hope not).

But heck, Avatar is just a movie.

There's no reason to start a holy war over whether pantheism or panentheism best describes Na'vi'an spirituality. Either word is hugely more appealing to me than the rigid transcendent monotheism of fundamentalist Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

An evolved comment policy

I love to get comments on my blogs. Open discussion is a big part of what churchlessness is about.

What I don't like, though, and I'm pretty sure almost all blog visitors would agree with me on this, is having to wade through comments made by people who aren't interested in furthering the purpose of this blog, but clearly have another agenda.

So I'm going to be more assertive in deleting comments that are off-base.

I'm tired of dealing with "flame wars," a bane of the Internet. I'm tired of responding to commenters who want this churchless blog to go away.

There's a big wide world out there. If you don't like the Church of the Churchless, go someplace else. It's just a click away. Note that I'm not saying you should go away if you want to share a differing opinion about some substantive churchless discussion.

I'm just going to crack down harder on comments that are clearly intended to disrupt open discussion, not engage in it. The recent "Walker" dust-up gave me the impetus to evolve in this direction.

Yesterday I was talking to a friend about how upset I got when a guy from Germany impersonated me, posting comments in my name and trying to make it look like those comments were coming from me. 

i said that this led to a back-and-forth string of argumentative comments that disturbed some visitors to the blog who want to read about interesting topics, not "nyah, nyah, you're one!" sorts of school-boy insults.

She said, "Yes, I'm one of those sensitive people myself. I can't stand it when people get that way on the internet." This made me realize that allowing ridiculous comment crap to remain on my blog is even worse than I'd been thinking it was.

So it's going to go, whenever I notice it. Meaning, some comments will remain up until they're unpublished. That's the price of open discussion.

Bottom line: if you support the churchless purpose of this blog and want to take part in a comment conversation on some topic, great. Comment away.

But if your main goal is to disrupt, insult, disparage, and otherwise try to throw wrenches into the machinery of open discussion, please go away. And realize that any comments you do leave are going to disappear in fairly short order.

Get bodily wild this Fourth of July

It's Independence Day here in the United States. July 4 is a great time to remind yourself, no matter where you are in the world, "I'm free -- independent of religious fantasies."

This afternoon I'm going to ride my newly-beloved Suzuki scooter through some beautiful countryside to nearby Independence, where a Fourth of July celebration is happening (seems appropriate to visit Independence, Oregon on Independence Day).

A very bodily activity. As if any of us can do anything else, so long as we're alive. What isn't bodily? Meditation sure is. Ditto for every other form of supposed "spiritual" practice.

Yesterday I started reading, "On the Warrior's Path: Philosophy, Fighting, and Martial Arts Mythology" by Danielle Bolelli. Already I can tell that I'm going to enjoy this book. A lot.

It's right up my alley -- a blend of religious skepticism, physical attunement, and martial arts realism. Here's some excerpts from the first few pages that I liked:

Both factions make a huge mistake. They look at spirituality as something strange, esoteric, removed from daily life. They look at it as if it were some far away dimension wrapped in clouds of mystery and incense, something with no connection to the most mundane aspects of life.

Forgetting that true spirituality is not ascetic nor against life, both its friends and foes call "spiritual" what is remote and beyond the material world. But spirituality is just the opposite. It is the quintessence of life. It is a way of waking up, of walking, of smiling, of dancing.

Spiritual are those who are not satisfied with surviving, but want to turn daily experiences into sources of ecstasy.

...Imagine Jesus Christ preaching after a session of Tai Chi Chuan. Probably, the entire Western culture would be drastically different. No rivalry between spirit and body. No tug-of-war between the soul yearning for Heaven and the body restraining it on Earth.

...The only thing that matters is the stream of energy flowing within us. The strength of an adult mammal, not different from that of a buffalo, a wolf, or a jaguar. A wild being aware of the life-force pulsating in every pore of the skin.

This is not just a physical experience. It is spiritual. It transforms the body as well as the character.

...Such an individual is a threat to every form of established authority. A wolf that can't be tamed. He is not under anyone's orders and doesn't accept dogmas because he already has within himself everything he needs to face life.

When streams of power flow in the veins of your body, dependency on external factors is reduced to a minimum. Confidence follows your every mood, and thus it is a pleasure to be surrounded by animals, mountains, and trees, since you don't have the feeling of being in a hostile environment.

It is a splendid, thrilling experience. Pure euphoria.

Happy Independence Day. Be wild.

Be wolf'ish. Howl. However you like.

You are your own commandments.

Commenting quandary

Between my two blogs, I've accumulated about two million page views over the years. That's a lot.

With all of this activity, only a few people have been persistent obnoxious commenters. Most blog visitors understand that leaving a comment on a blog post is a privilege, not a right.

They respect the purpose of a blog, are appropriately courteous to other commenters, and don't abuse the complimentary free speech offered to them (meaning, I pay money, and put quite a bit of time, into maintaining this blog so that visitors can freely share ideas).

It's a quandary when some commenter acts like a jerk. Many, if not most, blogs face this problem at some point. Some bloggers moderate comments, not posting them until they've been reviewed.

I've been reluctant to do that, because it interferes with the free flow of communication. Plus, when I visit a blog, I like to see my comment posted immediately -- and I assume most other people feel the same way.

However, it also concerns me when people get bothered by an obnoxious commenter. Often I'm not able to delete unacceptable comments immediately. So they may stay up a while, hate-filled, profane, and insulting as they may be.

Recently Obnoxious Commenter #1 has been Ashy Heller of Cape Town, South Africa, who posts under other names, such as Joshilan. He is a long-time initiate of Radha Soami Satsang Beas, and apparently feels that he is honoring his guru (who I assume is Charan Singh) with his often obscene "defenses" of Sant Mat principles.

I believe in free speech. But not in unfettered hate speech. So I'm curious about how other people would prefer to handle comment abusers like Ashy Heller. Here's my suggestion (if you don't agree, leave a comment with your own ideas):

Ignore him, if you come across a comment that hasn't been deleted yet. I'd rather preserve free commenting speech for other blog visitors, than control Ashy's rants 100% by moderating all comments.

As I've noted before, my feeling is that when someone spews hate-filled language and insults, they are censoring themselves -- because no one takes them seriously. What people like Ashy want is to be noticed, and unfortunately I'm having to do just that at the moment in talking about my commenting quandary.

But if people don't respond to Ashy's rants -- or those of anyone else who spews non-sensical garbage rather than engaging in forthright discussion -- this is the most appropriate reaction to inappropriate behavior.

Anyway, I'm with those who like open courteous discussion of interesting subjects. I'll keep on doing my best to keep habitual obnoxious commenters from using this blog as their soapbox.

If you come across comments you don't like, there's a simple solution: ignore them. Then light a candle of considered discourse rather than cursing the ranting darkness. That's how I see things, at least.

Commenters, here's how to reduce blog visitor aggravation

Like the good Buddhist that I'm not, I have boundless compassion for the sentient beings who visit this blog.

Largely, because I'm one myself.

Aside from proof-reading my own writings after they're posted, I read every comment, even when I have to grit my teeth and force myself.

So what produces the dreadful affliction, Comment Reading Aggravation? And how can it be prevented?

I covered these questions pretty well, in my non-humble opinion, last year in "Boxing up varieties of belief." Which began with...

Why do some people's proclamations irritate or please me more than other proclamations?

I'm speaking generally here, about all sorts of utterances. Verbal sayings. Blog posts and comments. Books. Magazine articles. Any way that someone communicates a belief from their brain into mine.

Sometimes I get an instant emotional rush of What the @#$%&! as soon as I register a communication that rates high on my irritation scale. Other belief messages produce a pleasant smile, and not just because I agree with what I've heard.

So what's going on here? What are the varieties of belief that generate such different reactions in me?

I ask -- no, I plead -- that certain aggravating commenters on this blog read what I wrote. (Echoing Carly Simon, if you think that I'm talking about you in this post, I probably am.)

Understand, I'm all for spirited discussion and debate. But there needs to be some basic common-sense understanding of what gets talked about on this blog, and how opinions get expressed.

Like I said before, here's why opinion can morph into aggravation: if someone insists that other people should believe something, yet there aren't a lot of good reasons for that belief, the insistence comes across as a dogmatic assertion rather than a subjective opinion.

And that's the basic (irritating) stance of fundamentalists. "Believe it because I say so." Well, that isn't going to fly on a blog called Church of the Churchless. Or, anywhere else populated by open-minded people.

So please, commenters, pretty please with humility on top, use language appropriate to what you're talking about to avoid unnecessarily increasing my blood pressure -- and that of other blog visitors.

If you're speaking about God, metaphysics, ultimate reality, life after death, soul travel, and such, there aren't going to be a lot of good reasons for your beliefs.

If there were, they wouldn't be "beliefs." They'd be facts. So understand that other people are going to look upon your opinions as just that: opinions.

It's fine that you like them. Just leave off the thou shalt insistence that if other people don't share your opinions, they're deluded idiots.

Sometimes I'll respond to a comment in a testy fashion, calling the commenter a fundamentalist. Usually he or she disagrees. Yet I'm correct in assigning that label if the person demands that other people accept the truth of what he or she is saying without offering up good reasons for the assertion.

Which includes the ridiculous retort, "No, Brian, you're the fundamentalist because you and your churchless ilk have a dogmatic belief that God [or some other metaphysical entity] doesn't exist."

Wrong. Not believing isn't a belief. Not knowing isn't knowledge, except in the sense of Socrates:

"Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful or good, I am better off than he is -- for he knows nothing and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him."

I'd say greatly the advantage.

So knowing when you know something that can be demonstrated to others, and when you don't, is advantageous to both ourselves and those with whom we interact.

Because we can't learn something new when we wrongly believe that we know it all. And people who are convinced they know what they really don't are hugely irritating to communicate with.

BIt of a blog makeover

TIme for a Church of the Churchless banner change. I wanted a stronger look that matched my other blog.

Browsing through my photos for image inspiration, I came across one that I took at Suttle Lake in central Oregon. (Larger version viewable in this blog post.)

I like how Serena, our pet companion (a.k.a. Canine Perfection), is gazing in the opposite direction from the way the chair on the dock is facing.

When I saw the photo, my mind said "spiritual independence." Which got the image onto the banner.

Last October I made a video of our walk around Suttle Lake. It has some closeups of Serena and shots of the fall foliage. Nature is so, well, natural. No God required.

Back to old comment system

Blog visitors, me included, were encountering too many problems with the TypePad Connect commenting feature, so I've gone back to the old system. It looks like comments made during the past week have been preserved. I've copied them in case any are missing.

Comment on comments

Some blog visitors haven't been able to view recent comments. I've let TypePad support know about the problem. Hopefully it will be temporary.

The new commenting feature, TypePad Connect, is in "beta" mode, so it isn't glitch free. This blog, like others that have adopted it, are helping to make TypePad Connect better by pointing out problems.

On this front, I've turned off the photo/image that can appear with a comment. I don't like how the space for a comment is reduced by the width of the photo/image.

Open thread (free speech!)

Since one of my favorite godless blogs is trying out this "open thread" thing, I figured it was time for me to take the plunge.

It's just an opportunity to say whatever you want via a comment. Or comment on a comment. And so on.

Basically an open thread is putting up a soapbox on a blog, so people can talk about any subject that comes to mind. (P.Z. Myers has his untouchable subjects; I don't ... so far.)

Blog has new commenting feature

Ooh, change! Sort of scary. Especially when I just made the change to this here Church of the Churchless blog.

Even though it isn't holy (except to me), any fiddling around with blog features, particuarly beta ones still in testing, is a bit anxiety-producing.

So far, the new commenting feature seems to be working fine. That's based on one comment I just left to the previous Krishnamurti post.

Let me know, via the email link to the left, if you encounter problems. I'm as new to this as you are, just about, but will do my best to answer questions.

For the moment I haven't activated the "show photo" option for people with a profile. I'm not sure if I want to see a photo of myself next to every comment I post, unless I upload a more youthful image.

[Update: changed my mind...it's activated. Decided that I'd enjoy seeing photos of commenters. Or whatever other image they wanted to associate with their persona.]

I don't believe you have to sign up for a profile in order to leave a comment. There are advantages to having a profile, though, as described in this FAQ, and itemized in the image above that I grabbed from the profile sign-up page (click to enlarge).

So I encourage you to sign up for one (if I decide to turn on the photo feature, you'll be all set to see yourself next to every comment you write).

I've deactivated the requirement to enter those anti-spam "CAPCHA" letters/numbers, so leaving a comment should be easier now.

A primary reason why I wanted to move to this new commenting feature is that threaded comments are possible with it. Meaning, you can leave a comment under another comment, which makes it easier to follow a conversation on a topic.

Since comment conversations sometimes take unpredictable and curious turns, far away from the original content of the post, this is a good thing.

How to talk with each other

It bothers me when visitors to this blog don't talk courteously with each other. Now, I realize that this is an endemic problem in cyberspace. Anonymity breeds contemptuousness.

Everybody who leaves comments here is a person (possibly aside from some robo-spam, which I have to delete now and then).

Yet if the people who engage in heated Church of the Churchless comment conversations were face to face in a coffee house, it's hard to believe that they'd be talking to each other in their online fashion. Even, or especially, if they'd just met.

There's no hard and fast rules for talking with each other. All I can do is share my own experience about what works and doesn't work.

By "work," I mean that the conversation, the dialogue, is satisfying and productive. For everybody. People feel that they can say what they want, and be understood by others. Disagreements don't degenerate into verbal fist fights.

This isn't rocket science. Mostly it's common courtesy. And application of the Golden Rule. Talk unto me as you'd like me to talk unto you.

I'll listen to you if you listen to me. I'll consider what you have to say if you consider what I have to say. If you don't like being called insulting names, then don't call me insulting names. If you can't stand self-righteous proclamations, then don't proclaim self-righteously.

I've done a lot of public speaking. I'm married to a psychotherapist (recently retired from many years in private practice). I got a master's degree in social work myself, before I realized that I wasn't cut out for counseling. I've been part of a monthly Salon discussion group that has met for many years. I organized dozens of community meetings where controversial death with dignity and health care rationing topics were discussed. I've been in the thick of highly emotional land use battles on both our neighborhood and state level.

So I know something about talking with people.

And this is why I get bothered when Church of the Churchless comments flow into my Outlook inbox that have a tone which wouldn't be tolerated if expressed in my living room (being the creator of this blog, TypePad emails me every comment).

Don't get me wrong. I'm not into censorship. Or keeping anybody from using whatever language they want, profane or otherwise. Fuck, sometimes no other word will do but an obscenity.

It's just that I consider myself the host of a discussion group which happens to meet in cyberspace, rather than a physical space. Like my living room.

If some people were sitting around in my house, conversing with each other, and one person started calling another an idiot who should shut up and go home, I'd feel the need to restore harmony. "Hey, that isn't appropriate. You can disagree without making personal attacks."

I usually don't do this on my blogs for a couple of reasons. One, people can stop reading anything they don't like, whereas you can't not hear whatever is said in a living room. Two, the medium of expression is part of the message being conveyed.

Thus how someone talks, in speech or writing, can communicate as much as what they're saying. So if someone claims to have knowledge into what life, spirituality, religion, and/or the cosmos is all about, how they share their insights is part and parcel of what they supposedly know.

To take a fundamentalist example, if a Christian says that he believes in a God of love and proceeds to vilify gays, abortionists, unbelievers, and sundry other heathens for being the Devil's spawn, I sense that the guy isn't living the faith that he claims to profess.

Realize that I appreciate each and every comment people leave on this blog. I understand the passion people have on subjects that are near and dear to them, because I'm the same way – when a certain button is pressed, I get fired up.

I just wish that when people write something – me included, naturally – we visualize that those we're speaking to are face to face with us. Real people, just like us. With feelings, emotions, egos, failings, blind spots, hang-ups, just like us.

To disagree is divine. But our disagreement should be with what a person is saying, not with him- or herself.

Conversing with a churchless Christian

Periodically I have a pleasant email conversation with Steve, a Christian who rarely goes to church. I like how Steve is willing to consider the blasphemous and ungodly musings posted here.

Interestingly, it was two years ago today that I shared a thoughtful message from Steve in my "Why I'm not a Christian." Since, Steve has been a regular Church of the Churchless visitor.

On New Year's Day he emailed me again. Steve spoke about the lack of change he observes in the content of this blog – both my posts and the comments of other people. I found this intriguing.

Because I both agree and disagree with him.

I expressed my yin and yang reaction to his message in a reply. Which led to Steve…(make a guess) changing.

Cool. I like a guy who walks his own talk. Wish I could be as self-consistent. Anyway, our email conversation follows, mildly edited. My favorite line from Steve: "Maybe the conversation itself is the goal."

Join in, if you like. Has anything you've read here changed your mind about something? Or spurred you to lead your life differently in some way?

(the conversation between Steve and me is fairly lengthy, so I'll make it a continuation to this post)

Conversing is cool

I've been doing a lot of conversing lately. That's cool.

By and large I have a grinch'y attitude toward Christmas – I absolutely hate the Salvation Army guy who plays "Joy to the World" on a loud trumpet in the foyer of a store that I go too frequently.

But I enjoy the social events that blossom this time of year, and the conversations that accompany them. Last night my wife and I hosted our annual Holiday Potluck and White Elephant Gift Exchange.

Aside from being able to get rid of some junk that we wrapped up and foisted onto some guests, I hugely enjoyed talking with old (and new) friends about subjects both profound and inane.

With I chat with Steve, it's often hard to tell the difference between our profundities and our inanities. Our minds work pretty much the same when it comes to spirituality and religion, a decidedly scary proposition for anyone trying to make sense out of what ushers from our mouths.

Even when we're completely clear-minded and sober, like we were last night.

I wish I had a buck for every time we agreed, "What is, is." This is a new (and old) favorite saying for both of us. The plus side of it is how it cuts through so much metaphysical, philosophical, and religious crap. The down side is that we end up sounding like 17 year old skateboarders.

Assuming that's really a down side. More and more, I'm coming to the conclusion that the big question – "What's It All About? – probably is a lot easier to answer than most people, including me, make it out to be.

I liked it when Steve said, "Meditation should be fun." That hit a nerve, because often it isn't for me. I've been meditating every day for almost forty years. It's always something I enjoy, but usually I wouldn't call it fun.

However, it should be. And I want it to be. So that got me thinking about what is fun for me. OK, one activity easily came to mind. But aside from that, what else? And how does it relate to #1?

Boogie boarding popped into my head right away. I've done a lot of it, always in Hawaii (the Pacific ocean off of Oregon is just too damn cold). Like #1, it's an activity that requires you to be both out of control and in control. Which is the source of the fun, as it is for most things.

In boogie boarding, like surfing, the goal is to be carried away by a wave – something a whole lot more powerful than yourself. To do that, you have to be in the right place at the right time. That's where the control comes in.

After that…it's enjoy the ride.

So when Steve said what he did, it struck me that letting go is what I want meditation to be all about. Otherwise it's like boogie boarding without ever catching a wave, or having sex without an orgasm. Not fully satisfying; not really fun.

But meditation isn't different from life. Whatever goes on closed-eyed during my morning meditating should bear a close resemblance to what happens open-eyed the rest of the day. Namely, fun.

Which doesn't mean hilarious ecstatic rolling-in-the-aisles, but a sense of enjoyable lightness. I'm finding that fun is almost always close at hand, but I push it away with various devices – mostly of my own making.

Trying too hard, for example. Adding more to a simple situation than needs to be there. Failing to accept that what is, is, and what isn't, isn't.

This is so simple, it's going to take more explaining. On another day.

For now, I wanted to end with another observation about conversing. Some of this blog's regular commenters have been talking about how the conversations that go on in comments to posts are often more interesting (and fun) that the posts themselves.

I heartily agree. So I've been thinking about how to facilitate these "ad lib" interactions between Church of the Churchless visitors.

I'm leaning toward trying out a new message board approach. This would be an addition to this blog, not a substitute. It'd be a way for people to initiate discussion topics on their own, and have more control over their comments (being able to edit and delete posts, for example).

I'm playing around with a trial version of a Church of the Churchless message board. So far, I'm liking it.

After all, conversing is cool. Whether face to face, or in cyberspace.

Some comments flagged as spam

I just realized that TypePad, which hosts this blog, has been over-zealously filtering some legitimate comments as spam. I just added a comment to a recent post (the subject of most of the rejected comments) explaining the problem.

Amazingly, my own comment about the over-zealous spam filter was rejected as spam! That's what happens when rigid dogma, in this case programming related, overrides common sense.

Hopefully TypePad will get its act together soon. Until then, I'll check regularly to see if any legitimate comments have been flagged as spam and publish them if they have been. Here's what I said in the comment:

Regarding the "censoring" of comments, I didn't have anything to do with this. It was TypePad's fault, the service that hosts this blog, as explained here.

TypePad recently made its spam check more aggressive. Overly so, obviously.

I'd rarely gotten spam comments after requiring the verification check where you have to type in some letters to verify that you aren't a spam "robot."

So it never dawned on me that genuine comments might be getting filtered until I read a notice from TypePad recently.

Anyway, I found eight comments in a "spam" section and published them. I believe most were related to this post -- forgot to check this more closely before moving them to the "active" category.

I apologize, on behalf of TypePad, for any confusion this has caused. Again, it wasn't me censoring the comments.

Invitation to write a churchless “sermon”

Over on the left sidebar you'll find a new "Posts Compendium" section.

I managed to take the assemblage of Church of the Churchless posts that I proudly called my blogistic compendium magisterium and transfer them from Google Page Creator to Typepad—my blog host.

Typepad now has the ability to create web pages in addition to posts, so it seemed preferable to keep the compendium as part of this blog rather than over on Google.

Browsing through my numerous posts, which date back to November 2004, I was reminded of how many words I've written. And also, of how much I enjoy reading other people's churchless thoughts.

It's always a pleasure to base a post on an email message that someone sent to me (after getting permission from him or her, naturally). I like taking a break from "sermonizing" once in a while. I also like to hear voices other than mine speaking on this blog.

So here's an offer (it's always been open, but not stated explicitly): if you've got something churchless to say, write it up and email me.

The possible subjects are as various as those in my compendium. Which cover just about any theme ("reality" is an inclusive rubric).

All I ask is that the writing be interesting, thoughtful, and non-dogmatic. It doesn't have to be a literary masterpiece. Just clear, honest, and straightforward.

[Update: For those would-be posters who are concerned about the visibility of their writing, I should point out a benefit of piggy-backing onto this blog.

By and large, Google is kind to me. My two blogs have been around for quite a few years and they're updated regularly—both Google positives. So at the moment Church of the Churchless posts are near the top of such search subjects as "Radha Soami Satsang Beas," "wu chi," and "best religion."

Of course, if you've lost your ego (unlike me), writing is its own reward, regardless of how many readers you have.]

I can't promise that I'll share everything sent to me as a post. But I can pretty much commit that if a writing isn't used as a post, it'll become a comment to an existing post. Thoughts are a terrible thing to waste.

Speaking of comments, a frequent blog visitor asked me if more comments could be shown in the "Recent Comments" section on the sidebar. Currently Typepad limits the number to ten.

I asked Typepad support if there was any way to show more comments. I pointed out that a single post may get quite a few comments, so it didn't make sense to limit the number of comments shown to ten when ten recent posts also are shown.

The support folks told me that I'd have to switch to a custom CSS layout if I wanted that change. Being HTML and CSS impaired, I don't want to give up the security blanket of the standard blog layout scheme.

But I've strongly urged Typepad to add an option that would allow standard layout users to display more comments. The help desk said my request will be considered.

I told them that feedback and interactivity is the hallmark of blogs. So comments need to be featured as prominently as possible.

I appreciate them a lot. Like I've said before, often they're the best part of a post.

My blogistic compendium magisterium

[Update: The compendium has been moved here. The Google Page Creator site isn't up any more.]

By the authority vested in me, which pretty much reduces down to keeping my annual TypePad blogging fee paid up, I hereby announce the release of a Church of the Churchless compendium magisterium.

I rarely put text in color, but if there's any occasion that demands it, this would be it. For a magisterium relates to the teachings of the Church; it sounds profoundly Latinish; and this blog surely is a church, because it's got the word twice in its name.

My compendium can be found here. It's a Google Page Creator creation. I fashioned it because blog entries, by their very nature, soon fade out of notice (and mind) as new entries push them off the front page and into the archives.

I wanted to list all of my blog posts in one place, partly for my own use. Often I remember writing about some subject and have to use Google to find what I said. Having the post titles all lined up by category on a single page gives me, and others, an alternative way of locating my blogistic rantings.

It wasn't always easy to put a post in a particular category. Some would say that every single one should go under "humor," and I'd find it difficult to argue against that. Nonetheless, I categorized them variously as best I could.

I've been working on the web page for quite a while as time permitted. Making my way through the Church of the Churchless archives, opening each post so I could copy the URL into a link, I was mainly struck by two things.

(1) I've written a lot of stuff. (2) I'm really fortunate to have so many thoughtful people willing to comment on that stuff.

So, thank you. I enjoy writing for the sake of writing. But knowing that someone is reading the writing, and interested enough to say something about what I've said, raises the joy level considerably.

And not only for me. For those who read the posts also. Because often the comments are the best part of a post. I read every one. Often they lead me in a different direction: philosophically, intellectually, emotionally, literarily.

Fairly frequently I noticed that a post had been stimulated by people's comments to a previous post, which spurred additional comments, and so we went.

After looking at all that I've written over the past two and a half years, the thought "Is there anything more to say?" came to mind. My answer: Probably there is.

The end of saying is the end of life. I'm not saying that we have to put everything into words, because a lot of life is unsayable.

However, there's a joy in speaking. To our own self. To others. To the cosmos.

Speakers and listeners go hand in hand. Thanks for holding mine.

I make some new web friends

There are some new friends in my "Links to Explore" category in the left-hand column. In the usual web fashion, I haven't talked with them or seen them, and probably never will.

Yet I feel that we're close, closer in some ways than I am with people who I meet face to face all the time. Pondering deep thoughts about life, spirituality, and the cosmos (plus some not so deep) gives us a lot in common.

The folks over at Religious Forums have brought almost 11,000 members together to discuss all sorts of belief systems. I appreciate their Church of the Churchless welcome, and will return the favor by sharing how Phil described their web site to me.

We are a very diverse forum that welcomes anyone willing to be civil, regardless of their spiritual persuasion or lack thereof.  That seems to make us nearly unique among religion forums on the net.  We are constantly getting new members who have been banned from other forums because they weren't "Christian enough" or "Muslim enough" or "Atheist enough" for the staff of the forum they were banned from. 

Indeed, our staff is itself an eclectic collection: We have conservative Christians, liberal Muslims, three kinds of Pagans, atheists, Buddhists, Native Americans, and folks who have not decided yet what they believe on the staff at religious forums. They all have in common a shared belief that civil discussion between people of different views is enriching and beneficial to everyone involved.

Sounds good. Plus, they just added an Eros Room! Even better.

Over at Café Philos, a fairly new blog billed as "commentaries on living, the arts and sciences written by café frequenting scoundrels," Paul finds a lot not to like in a book by Christian fundamentalist James Dobson. Amen to that. And a post about Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion led me to more thoughts about the book on The Buddhist Blog.

Jim is an Eternal Student and writes about what life is teaching him. In an email he told me that he's a little more God-sympathetic than I am, wanting there to be a personal God. Well, me too. I just have the same questions Jim asks in his summary of himself.

And what about religion? Do I go to church regularly? (No, but if I ever find a community of people like me, I will start going again). Do I believe in God? I wish that I could say "yes, definitely". I WANT there to be a loving God behind it all. I want there to be a kinder and gentler (and more intelligent) life after death. And I believe in the duty to help make this world kinder, gentler and more intelligent. I pray every day. And I do what I can to promote kindness and gentility.

But yes, sometimes I get that scary feeling (similar to looking over a high, steep cliff) that maybe there isn't a God. The best I can say is that this world seems like a place that should have a God behind it. And sometimes I can almost see or hear that God in the truly beautiful and meaningful things that happen during the course of a lifetime. But looking at all the evil and pain and suffering, all the hopeless lives, all the coldness of death, I wonder how a loving God could let things get this bad. What is the point of so much suffering, so many broken souls, so much death? There well may be a reason -- just because I can't figure out special relativity doesn't mean that Einstein was wrong, and just because I can't figure out why the world is the way it is doesn't mean that there isn't a "meta-Einstein" behind it.

True. But my bet is that a personal God isn't at the root of It All. Increasingly I find myself inclined toward the philosophy expressed on A Personal Tao, a site I found on one of the sites that found me.

Like Douglas Hofstadter says in his soon-to-be-released new book, we're strange loops, looping strangely.

Be natural

Got some sort of Mr. Natural theme going on. Recently I ran across David Lane’s right-on musings about the problem with “perfection” when it comes to gurus. Or, anyone else. David says:

"If we say something like the guru is infinite, then if we see something that is finite, something that is limited, then if we subtract that finite aspect from Infinity we end up with something infinitely less.

There isn't apparently degrees of infinity here.

So any thing that appears less than Perfect is going to become a point of contention, whether it is reactions about photos or internet bans or what have you.

The perception of imperfection is what fuels these criticism and sometimes even the most petty offense will loom much larger precisely because it contradicts Beas' notion that the guru must be perfect."

Yes. Again, the same applies to any person. When we match them (or ourselves) against an impossible ideal, something has to be discarded: either the unreasonable standard of perfection or our ability to see things as they naturally are.

To err is human. And very possibly, also divine. We’ve got this idea that the spiritual heights should be pristine, pollution free, clear to the horizon. Yet nature herself is messy. So if the Creator bears any resemblance to the Created, paradise has some dirt under the carpet.

Here’s another take on naturalness from the blog of a West London socialist. I found his post in the course of perusing the links that lead people to the Church of the Churchless. This guy wrote about hearing would-be guru Gangaji talk. A commenter added a link to my own Gangaji-related post.

I enjoyed his well-written honest description of the evening. I too have wondered, “How many Babaji’s are there in India?” He’s got a Mr. Natural philosophy of life:

"It doesn't matter what you do, you will surely die; it doesn't matter what you do, you will be forgotten; it doesn't matter what you think, what you believe, what you crave or crush or kill or desire – it will all be gone. This amazing fleeting reality we experience – this hour we strut and fret upon the stage – it's a mayfly existence. An amazing colour show.

So, my advice to you, should you wish to take advice from someone you've never met, is, first and bloody foremost stop worrying. Stop worrying about life, stop worrying about whether you're good enough, stop worrying whether you're sexy enough or bright enough or cool enough or rich enough or happy enough or old enough or young enough or fit enough or strong enough or tough enough or successful enough – it doesn't matter."

Then today I got an email from Catherine, a Church of the Churchless visitor who always has an interesting perspective on the cosmos. Here’s what she had to say:

"Godlessness--bring it on!

I used to know I could produce a loaf of bread. Producing a human was not something I could do. I surely was the incubator only in the whole birth process.

Birth, however, is completely natural. Phenomenally and spectacularly natural is what we are through millennia of natural adaptation. Us humans find ourselves so amazing that we cannot conceive of the fact that we and all around us have produced ourselves. We attribute it all to something other that we also create out of the finer natural mind.

We rely on other people and books to tell us stories which smother our natural intelligence. No need to praise or pray to something outside ourselves. Graceful effort at knowing and strengthening our natural selves and environment is the best we can do to improve.

What is the best place to be? Priests, Gurus coax us with heaven or Sach Khand (the latter a sort of perpetual bliss ocean! - no thanks). I am guessing that the most heavenly place people can conceive of is a six star hotel in the clouds with all the extras.

Whatever else is promised by Gurus, Gods and Lords, is in fact hoped for by disciples as in many cases, the best that they can conceive of in luxury. In fact, like in the “Blood Diamonds” film, people will go through and cause hell in the hopes of eventually ending up with some peaceful luxury.

The best place to be is in fact the best, most natural self. Giving credibility to something outside of our natural selves is the root cause of all disease."

Nicely said. I’m assuming she’s speaking mainly of mental afflictions. But unnaturalness certainly harms our physical being also. High heels are alluring. However, human heels weren’t evolved to tilt inches into the air.

We usually pay a price for walking down a road that nature didn’t fashion. Like, with podiatrist visits.

Marcel the medium takes on Julia the atheist

Ever eager to help publicize my favorite Hollywood medium, Marcel Cairo, I invite you to peruse his Celebrity News Alert that got emailed to me recently.
Download marcels_celebrity_news_alert.doc

Marcel is engaged in some bloggish back and forth with Julia Sweeney, Saturday Night Live alum, who has morphed into an articulate unbeliever, as I wrote about in “Letting go of God. And Uncle Fred.”

In this post on Sweeney’s blog she exhibits some skepticism toward mediums like Marcel. Well, a bit more than “some.”

You say you believe in the afterlife BECAUSE you are a spiritual medium. What does that mean, exactly? This is what a spiritual medium is to me - a person who takes other people's money by playing on their weaknesses.

Marcel’s response, buried fairly deep in the comments, includes:

What does get under my skin is the aggressive desire by some atheist to dictate their doctrine of truth upon others by trying to eradicate spiritual beliefs and faith in others. It's a bit Draconian.

Well, I don’t think this is what Sweeney and other unbelievers are trying to do. They’re trying to shine some light on blind faith and see if anything is really there. What’s the problem with that?

If the emperor has no clothes, it isn’t possible to eradicate them. They’re already missing. What’s being taken away is the erroneous belief that Emperor Religion is finely dressed. Errors should be corrected. That isn’t Draconian. It’s a gift.

Evolution. Further.

Today I’m getting messages from somewhere or someone about something. Wish I could be more explicit. Maybe you’re better at deciphering messages than I am. Best I can do at explication is the one word title of an email that a friend sent to me: Evolution.

This cartoon was the entire message.

Which reminded me of a Rumi poem that I’d just read in Anne Lamott’s book, Traveling Mercies. The poem is called “Shore and Ground.”

Keep walking, though there’s no place to get to.
Don’t try to see through the distances. That’s not for human beings.
Move within, but don’t move the way fear makes you move.
Today, like every other day, we wake up empty and frightened.
Don’t open the door to the study and begin reading.
Take down a musical instrument.

Let the beauty we love be what we do.
There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground.

Then for some reason (do I need to know?) I went back and re-read this passage from the gnostic Secret Book of John that was quoted in a book I bought last Sunday, The Gospel of Judas.

The One is
illimitable, since there is nothing before it to limit it,
unfathomable, since there is nothing before it to fathom it,
immeasurable, since there was nothing before it to measure it,
invisible, since nothing has seen it,
eternal, since it exists eternally,
unutterable, since nothing could comprehend it to utter it,
unnamable, since there is nothing before it to give it a name.

The One is the immeasurable light, pure, holy, immaculate.
It is unutterable, and is perfect in incorruptibility.
Not that it is just perfection, or blessedness, or divinity:
it is much greater.

The One is not corporeal and it is not incorporeal.
The One is not large and it is not small
It is impossible to say,
How much is it?
What kind is it?
For no one can understand it.

Ken Kesey, my man, you said so much in one word. Furthur.

Also, Further.

That’s all there is to do. The only direction there is to move. The sole commandment there is to keep.

Evolve. Further.

A British churchless blogger

Check out “Off The Beaten Track,” the blog of a British man who has left the well-trodden path of Christianity and is heading toward the wide-open spaces of spirituality.

It was nice to get an email from Paul, the OTBT’er, who has made the Church of the Churchless his blog of the week. I’m honored. Faithless hands meeting across the sea.

In the Best of Off The Beaten Track section I found “Do Not Believe,” which features some great advice from the Buddha about following your own way.

I also noted via the most recent OTBT post that Paul had taken a quiz intended to show what sort of religion you best fit in with. He and I are on very much the same wavelength, with both of us fitting into the independent “spiritual” category. After taking the quiz I was told:

Your ideals are mostly spiritual, but in an individualistic way. While spirituality is very important in your life, organized religion itself may not be for you. It is best for you to seek these things on your own terms.

Amen to that.

I get mail

It’s always a pleasure to get emails from Church of the Churchless visitors. Especially when they include such marvelous phrases as “love your writings” and “I absolutely love reading it [this blog].”

But there’s a lot else to like in what Elizabeth Wagner and Aaron Buss had to say. So here’s the sound of two voices other than mine that I’m pleased to share.

Both Elizabeth and Aaron referred to my “Become one to know the One” post where I talked about not seeing my name in print. Elizabeth also speaks poetically about mystery.

-------------------------
Here’s Elizabeth’s message:

"re: mystery ( as this person sees it)

The very fact of our conscious existence is mysterious.
That we walk upright with rivers of a red liquid cruising through our bodies circulated by a pump.
Soft fragile organs.
A bony frame holding it all together.
A grey, mushy substance at the top
(not much different from what you can buy in a butcher's shop) governing this strange configuration that can by a thought embrace the universe or feel the tiniest prick of a thorn. This is extraordinarily mysterious.
The how and why do not exist.
We are possibilities
We are all just possibilities.

re: your name not mentioned (Plotinus)

It doesn't matter.
Your writing stands alone
uniquely and superbly written.
Why doesn't it matter? Why does it matter?:
1. Because nothing matters
2. Because everything matters.
3. Because your name is just a combination of letters with no intrinsic meaning
4. Because in true reality you only think you exist
5. Because in a few seconds we shall all be dead
6. Because our egotism is all we have to cling to
7. Because we seek to live forever
8. Because the idea of death is terrifying, horrific
9. Because we are what we are, incomplete.
10. Because of our yearning we are very, very worthy
11. Because we are conscious

Dear Brian:
All part of the absurdity. The JOKER is laughing.
Love your writings.
--Elizabeth Wagner"

-------------------------
And here’s Aaron’s message:

"Have been busy the last couple weeks but finally got caught up on your blog. I absolutely love reading it. I think it's a silly rule that they don't print people's names on the articles. I can't say I've read every other spiritual magazine, but I think most of them do list the writers' names out of courtesy. I wonder what the purpose of this is really. Surely people who spend all that time writing deserve to be recognized for their contribution, and for people who don't know them it wouldn't mean anything anyway!

I suppose there could be a lot of reasons - fear that someone who writes really well will receive too much recognition...and become a competitor? I think that an 'organization' that is humble should certainly have no problem in praising others. It seems kind of contradictory to the precept that one should be humble. Certainly if someone is truly humble they should have no problem in praising others, so long as it is done in the right spirit.

Somehow that and the latest 'I' thing just feels... well, creepy. I am also Jewish and one thing I love about Judaism is that you are always absolutely supposed to credit someone else for their thoughts, work, comments, etc. It's a way of 'sharing the wealth' of a communal and combined knowledge and community experiences.

I guess that's what I have found to be most lacking in RS [Radha Soami]. Not that one shouldn't do what the guru is telling you, but there are really no other voices of the community, and when opinions or writings are allowed, they are forced to remain faceless and nameless. It's not a celebration of all our experiences and insights, but the older I get, feels strangely Karl-Rovian - I start to worry that it's all about spin control and information management.
--Aaron Buss"

Comment housekeeping

A frequent commenter on Church of the Churchless posts asked me to delete his comments, which I’ve done. So the thread of a series of comments now may be a bit difficult to make sense of, since sometimes other people commented on a deleted comment.

I’ve taken the liberty of editing comments that started off with a mention of the commenter’s name, as in “Dear _____” or “______, you said.” I figured that it would be less confusing to leave out the name since the comment being referred to no longer can be read. However, occasionally this left the impression of a comment on a comment floating in commentless air. Oh, well. No big deal.

While on the subject of comments, I love it when someone shares an opinion on this Church of the Churchless blog. I avidly read every comment and email sent to me regardless of whether I agree with what was said. Feedback, whether positive or negative, connects us with others.

I frequently think of a quote attributed to C.S. Lewis in the movie “Shadowlands.” We read to know that we are not alone. Yes, but now the Internet allows us to read—and then write to the person who wrote what we just read. Who then may choose to write to us about our reading of his or her writing. And so on, lessening aloneness.

However, the Internet also can foster separation. People can communicate anonymously, sharing their thoughts with other nameless and faceless recipients. It is easy to forget that a real live person is using a keyboard to type in those ideas, and a real live person is reading them on a computer screen. This can lead to things being said remotely in cyberspace that wouldn’t be said face-to-face in a physical space.

On my other weblog, last month I wrote about the National Spelling Bee, free-associating into an anecdote about seeing William Simon on C-Span. Simon is a conservative who ran for governor of California in 2002. I said:

“Simon was giving some sort of Heritage Foundation talk, judging by the banner hanging behind his podium. He was blathering on, as is his wont, about how the United States is a Christian nation, with 90% of our citizens believing in Jesus. Simon said that religion (Christianity, obviously) should be taught in schools because it is so obviously part of our culture.

A Pakistani audience member rose and told Simon that he couldn’t believe in Christ, but that the Koran contained many references to Jesus and Mary. He wondered what sort of place he had in America, given Simon’s remarks.

It was interesting to see how William Simon changed his tune when faced with a real live non-Christian standing before him, rather than with merely his own abstract political/theological notions. Here he was, having to answer an obviously intelligent, concerned, caring person who didn’t believe how he did.

Simon said that everybody had a right to their own faith or lack of faith, but that 90% of Americans believed in a higher power. A few minutes before it was ‘in Jesus;’ now it was ‘in a higher power.’”

What I could see happening, as Simon had to look into the eyes of the Pakistani and speak to him directly, was a softening of his previous harshness toward non-Christians. I’m not saying that Simon had changed his opinions at all, but the manner in which he expressed them became more respectful. Speaking person to person is different than speaking to a featureless crowd.

When I write something that is going to appear on the Internet, I try to visualize my intended readership sitting right in front of me, whether this be a single person or—in my grandiosity—all of humanity.

If I feel strongly about a subject it’s all too easy to forget that other people hold a differing opinion that seems equally valid to them. Visualizing an audience comprised of both agreers and disagreers helps to remind me that whatever I wouldn’t say to someone face to face, I shouldn’t broadcast in cyberspace (even though I surely do this at times).

“Speak unto others as you would have others speak unto you.” That sums it up pretty well for me. Almost always Church of the Churchless commenters are in tune with this adage. Passion doesn’t preclude courtesy. Speaking strongly isn’t at odds with speaking respectfully.

If you want to see an example of truly unbridled, no holds barred, hit-em-where-it-hurts cyberdebating, take a look at the many comments on my HinesSight post about the most beautiful woman in the world. That’s a subject that stirs real passion.