TMichael: Tracey submitted the following questions. Your sincere questions are welcome and I’ll do my best to include them in a conversation for publication from time to time.
facially metaglip Q: pedir namoro por telefone Ixtapaluca Tracey N. asks:
“My counsellor has directed me to some books. In one, they talk about Adam and Eve’s fall from grace in the Garden of Eden and how this changed everything for future humanity-we became sinners and “since the Fall”, we come out of the womb empty, terrified and isolated. I have a hard time grasping this concept of sin/sinners, etc. How one “selfish” action created problems for all that follow. If we are our own creators and extensions of God, who is pure love, how is this possible?”
This is the classical Christian story. It’s not so easily dismissed because it is not entirely false, yet it is so greatly simplified as to be misleading. This is a great problem for humanity, it’s teachers and those who have sincere questions and longing for truthful answers. No human can know the answers for certain. Only those on the spiritual side know what occurred during the time of Adam and Eve, and know whether or not there are demons and devils. And yet there seems to be no relief from the questions and speculative answers. The chief longing is to have answers that can be recognized as certain truth.
I’m afraid the truth will remain as it is, a mystery until such time as each human is someday on the other side and can see the answers free from the constraints of time. That won’t be much comfort for someone who believes that knowing the truth will help guide her life today.
Is it necessary to know in order to live a life beautifully? If devils and demons exist to terrorize humans, then what is a human’s defense against harm? To hire a priest or minister who claims falsely to know a demon’s nature and exorcise them?
Do you need to know that your original parents sinned by disobeying God and therefore all offspring forever are doomed to be visited by punishment for that sin?
The questions are directed at the wrong line of inquiry. Instead of seeking to explain why there is misery and disappointment in your life, seek instead to find joy and accept that misery and disappointment are your teacher, i.e. an alternate state. Understanding why something exists in a state doesn’t always guarantee a remedy for change. This may sound harsh and uncaring for a person’s misery and heartbreak, but it is not. A person can get stuck going in circles by asking the wrong questions and listening to answers from the wrong sources.
That in and of itself may sound fatalistic too. A dead end of sorts where one is left without a turnaround, a way out. There are only a few knowledgeable humans on Earth at this time who could begin to tell you what you are asking and they are secluded. Even so, if you spoke to them you’d be disappointed in their answers, because they would require a comprehension beyond your own capacity to grasp.
Seek your inner guidance and counsel on these matters. That is not to mean to say that you won’t have times in your life when another can help you through a situation through counseling. Focus your thought and inquiry on where you want to be, not on the presumed obstacles blocking your way.
TM: I’m primarily referring to healers from the non-allopathic spectrum, but also include some M.D.s. Mostly I’m speaking of healers who use techniques that are non-verifiable.
MJ: The scientific realm of medicine is relatively new as reckoned by time of humanity’s place on earth. Most people today are horrified to hear of past practices administered by “medical” men; even within your lifetime some practices now seem brutish. Technology has changed medical practice immensely.
TM: It has in some ways I think. But you’re referring to allopathic medicine. What technology is there to advance non-allopathic techniques?
MJ: It depends on what you define as technology I suppose. There is technology that serves both methodologies. Why for instance would a device that measures blood pressure serve only allopathic medicine? It’s measuring a result. So, if a practitioner applying acupuncture to a patient to reduce blood pressure uses the same device to monitor his result as an M.D., then the device serves both methods.
TM: That’s true.
MJ: I think I know what you’re talking about though and I’ll go into that. You’re talking about people who profess to be healers, but don’t claim to produce results that can be objectively measured, but instead rely upon the testimony of the patient to report results. Those can prove to be unreliable at times. Do you think that happens too within the allopathic realm?
TM: It does. I think non-allopathic healing practices refer to non-physical causes to physical symptoms in presenting an illness. And allopathic care has focused on the physical realm almost exclusively. Measuring results tends to cover the physical symptoms and points to physical causes.
MJ: You’ve identified a major point of consideration: since the technology of measurement happens in an environment of allopathic care it tends to confirm the validity of the methodology that it serves and the underlying assumptions supporting its principles. Most non-allopathic practitioners don’t have access to MRI equipment or other expensive technology to support their practices. That means any results they achieve either go unnoticed, or rely upon the testimony of the patient, or must be used in conjunction with an allopathic practioner that does have access to the technology and can thus claim credit for the positive results.
TM: It seems you’re leaning towards support of the non-allopathic healers by saying that the decks are stacked against them, kind of a Rodney Dangerfield “get no respect” slant. What does this have to do with spirituality by the way? You must admit that this topic was prompted by you and I merely accepted it because I wonder about it from time to time.
MJ: I simply chose a topic that I know you’ve pondered for many years as a suggestion for us to have a conversation about it. Its connection to spirituality is a tricky question, because it presumes that some things are related to spirituality and some aren’t. Can you think of something that isn’t connected to spirit?
TM: Uh, not really, if I’m thinking as a spiritually inclined person. But I doubt an atheist would answer your question that way. Maybe they would say nothing is connected to spirit.
MJ: But you’re not an atheist by virtue of having this conversation with me, and perhaps this conversation and all the other ones in this series are for people who believe in a spiritual existence.
TM: I accept that.
MJ: You are quite argumentative at times without a genuine connection to the essence of the matter. Are you feeling conflicted about your own understanding of spirituality and whether or not you accept it as a truth to live by? Is that why you usually reject healing practices that claim to base physical symptoms on non-physical causes? And may I add that you don’t trust allopathic methods either, and so where does this leave you when you are ill?
TM: There is truth to your insinuation that I’m self-contradictory on this issue. And maybe you know what I want to talk about before I know. Yes, I tend to not trust most healing methodologies because of a combination of past experience and I’m predisposed with a suspicious nature. And finally you’re right that I’m conflicted on applying spirituality to human affairs, because I don’t see much proof of spirituality’s existence, or least I just don’t know what is or isn’t proof. But are most people that sure?
MJ: That’s a good question. With advances in scientific explanation for things, spirituality has taken a backseat in answering the questions posed in all areas of life. This was a necessary step in the evolution of humanity to separate the spiritual from superstitions. But I’ll suggest to you now that science will gradually learn to measure phenomena beyond the physical or material and then there will be a convergence of sorts. This is already happening within the field of physics and subatomic properties, as well as the nature of energy. Superstitions can be expelled by science, and this is good. Spirituality cannot be expelled nor disproved; but also it can’t be proven. There will come a day when this will be much clearer.
TM: I think your last statement is the one that causes me the greatest concern—it’s always in the “future” for spiritual realities. Why can we send spacecraft beyond our solar system, but we can’t prove the existence of the soul?
MJ: Your question serves two different issues. If the scientific community wanted to apply the same resources to proving the existence of the soul as they do to space travel, then the proof would be available. Until proof of the soul serves an economic end it won’t happen. Or I can say it another way—until humanity has exhausted it’s curiosity of the material realm to such a degree that spiritual understandings become more important, then we will have the disparity you see now. We’ve had this discussion many times and it hasn’t resolved for you. You’re concern is targeted to the spiritual realm and why we haven’t produced more proof for humanity. You can understand that it is humanity’s will to provide this proof to its own satisfaction as has been done with scientific inquiries.
TM: You’re right, I do blame the spiritual realm for not driving the point more assertively. I forget that humanity has to do it and I deflect my frustration onto the spiritual realm. In fairness, the spiritual realm has given humanity plenty of direction and we tend to bog down in religious dogma. I think I’ve strayed from my opening question, but appreciate the way you guide the conversation around to what really is at the root of it.
MJ: You often know the answers to questions you ask. It’s a matter of helping you see that. Make no mistake there are fraudulent practitioners within the populations of allopathic and non-allopathic healers, and they only serve to undermine perception of competency and trust. There are many who do good and effective work. We’ve witnessed a convergence of healers from both camps who can appreciate the value of both methodologies and work together to produce positive results. It is through that collaboration that we will see better application of measurement that shows the efficacy of both methods.
Conversation with Master Buddha and TMichael: Gay Marriage
TM: I’ve been reading news accounts of the battle between those who favor gay marriage being sanctioned under law and those who oppose it. Some oppose it on religious grounds and some on biological grounds in that it doesn’t facilitate pro-creation naturally. What is your view on the religious grounds for or against gay marriage?
Master Buddha: If a man and a woman have sexual intercourse, there is a probability pregnancy will result, and a second probability that child birth will follow. This is commonly known and understood in modern society. That wasn’t always the case—many centuries ago it was a mystery how offspring were conceived by the vast majority of human population. There arose from the mystery many superstitions around conception and child birth. Conception and child birth require the engagement of male and female contributing each their part. This is a biologic fact. It doesn’t require a social bond to be successful. As a matter of modern fact, it doesn’t require that they ever physically engage in person (artificial insemination).
TM: Ok, I’m with you so far. Creating babies follows sex between a man and a woman, or by artificial means. A long time ago, and I hope a very long time ago, people didn’t quite make the connection and so developed superstitious beliefs around baby-making.
Master Buddha: So, by biologic fact a gay male marriage cannot produce offspring between the two partners, but can enlist a female outside the marriage to perform that role. The same of course then for two female partners. This means that gay couples are capable of producing offspring by proxy of a third partner if they so desire. This is the same for heterosexual couples who are unable to conceive a child. It merely accommodates the biologic fact.
TM: If it’s a biologic fact, then how does it become a religious issue or even a social concern?
Master Buddha: I’m pulling this apart for you, because it can get very tangled. At some point in human history there was a shift in social belief that the chief role of marriage between a man and woman was to create offspring. To ensure that their offspring would not just be running around in reckless abandon they also created social convention around the single-family household and the early beginnings of property rights. The child belonged to the parents and the household and was subject to their supervision and responsibility, and they together as a household subject to the larger society and community.
TM: You’re saying it was a social evolution, not a religious one. Is that correct?
Master Buddha: It is difficult to separate religion from social, because religion is a social enterprise. This is why this subject is so impossible for some people to intellectually grasp. I will continue now to explain.
Religion is a social enterprise, which means that humans have created religions and formed into social sects in order to propagate their religious beliefs and social tenets.
TM: Hold on a second, almost all religious people will say that religions were created by God, or Gods through prophets or enlightened intermediaries (present company included), and that they are followers of that particular religious teaching. God laid the foundation and they followed his word to build on it.
Master Buddha: Please refer to other conversations we’ve had on the subject of truth and how it is convoluted with faith and a state of not knowing everything. Humans will posit truth on a great many things, but that doesn’t make it true. It is merely their belief in what is true. Let’s assume for a moment that religions were founded on direct expression of truth from God or Gods. Humans, as you suggest, interpret that and build on it to make it a social belief system. The filter applied is still of human origin, and therefore subject to the ignorance of humanity.
TM: I don’t mean to stray from our topic, but this seems important to clear up, because so much of what follows is dependent upon this point. You’re saying that religions are social institutions and are birthed and propagated as social tenets, not the word of God.
Master Buddha: I don’t wish to belabor the point of origin of religious beliefs, and so for our discussion I said we could assume that religions spring from the word of God or Gods. Humans the take that word and add to it their interpretations and filter it into social conventions by which they live. That means that religions become social entities imbued with human constructs of socialized behavior. May we continue?
TM: Yes, but maybe we have to come back to this at some point.
Master Buddha: The great problem for humanity in building laws that govern society is that they cannot separate social convention from religious teachings. Gay marriage as it relates to law must pass through the filters of social convention, which is conditioned by religious beliefs. So you can easily see the conundrum. And this provokes a challenge to the truths held by those who believe that the word of God prohibits such human relations.
For them the syllogism flows like this:
God has said that the purpose of a man|woman relationship is to create babies and form single-family households and rear their offspring.
Gay couples cannot create babies directly.
Therefore, gay marriage is not sanctioned by God, and must be excluded from human options.
For religious believers, denying this logic is tantamount to denying the word of God. It will then undermine a society based upon the word of God and eventually lead to the ruin of society. How it reconciles with many other words of God in which it produces conflict and contradiction is inconvenient, but doesn’t cause their belief to waver. They must default to the only intellectual escape possible, which is that God is mysterious and knows more than humankind, and so it isn’t the place of humanity to question this contradiction. It is for humanity to follow the things that are clear as well as the things that aren’t without fail. God will sort it out later.
TM: Yes, I believe you’ve stated that correctly according to what they believe. But is that correct?
Master Buddha: The question is presented incorrectly. Let me re-frame it. What is the role of religion for humanity and what is the role of social convention in creating laws that govern human behavior?
TM: So, you won’t just come right out with an answer to settle the question will you?
Master Buddha: I’m taking an approach that will help you understand the issue and formulate an answer. As we have stated previously in these conversations, the role of religion is to represent spiritual theories for individuals to ponder in an effort to expand their imaginations and range of possibilities for living a better life. Religions form from spiritual ideas and concepts, that in the pure state apply to an individual. Religions become social institutions because they are comprised of like-minded individuals. The purpose of which is to share and discuss the spiritual idea and concepts.
Humans have taken religions in this social form and expanded them into governance entities. Therein lies the problem. It sets up massive conflicts between different religions and between members of society who subscribe to those different religious beliefs. The only way for a system of religious-dominant laws to work without constant and violent conflict is too segregate inhabitants by religion and assign each to their own geographic place. Since that isn’t practical today, you must have a different way. Democratic societies have created a separation of religion and government. Ideally, this should work in a pluralistic religious society. But, it doesn’t work as perfectly as intended, because those who are aligned with religious beliefs that have been interpreted to guide their daily lives in an integrated society, immediately come in conflict with behaviors they find inconsistent with their beliefs. The resulting dissonance cries for resolution. They seek to alter laws to remove the dissonance.
TM: I can see why you’re not so popular with Christians and Muslims. From what I observe both religious groups would love for everyone to line up with them to rule the world according to their beliefs. In that scenario they could outlaw all the behaviors inconsistent with their beliefs and presumably find the harmony in governance.
Master Buddha: Well, secretly all religious groups wish for that scenario, but some are more vocal than others.
TM: Years ago when I visited Nepal and spent some time in Kathmandu, I noticed the incredible non-hostile melding of Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and Christians. But back to our topic. How do we bring this conversation to a conclusion?
Master Buddha: Gay marriage could only be subject to religious scrutiny within a purely religious context. Religious context is confined to individuals and their peers for introspection. Social institutions that are erected for governance must take into consideration that there are many types of life styles and it is the responsibility of government to create laws that promote harmony among the differences while removing violence. The fact that gays must seek legal sanction within your laws informs us that the separation between government and religion is not yet a reality.
TM: Will it ever be?
Master Buddha: It’s possible of course, but only when people representing religions surrender to living peacefully with others with different beliefs and abstain from their agendas of hegemony in thought and behavior.
Conversation with Master Buddha and TMichael: Faith
TM: What is the nature of faith as it relates to matters spiritual or religious?
Master Buddha: The nature of faith rests on the premise that there are things one can’t know for certain through direct observation, and so one must imagine that given a strong feeling that something must be true, then it is accepted as true. It becomes a belief in one’s truth based upon the strong feeling.
TM: So what we consider to be evidence of truth through direct observation of facts is not faith?
Master Buddha: Well, that is faith also to some extent, because has one ever experienced absolute proof of truth? Can you truly say that even the things you thought you proved to yourself through direct observation have always been really true? Have there been occasions where you observed a thing to be true and later discovered your observations were not so accurate? There is usually some element of doubt and faith fills in the gap.
TM: Aren’t all these considerations about truth relative to time and our progressive understanding of many things that change over time?
Master Buddha: Yes, of course. Your understanding of truth changes as you grow to reach new understandings about yourself, others and the universe. There is always a measure of faith thrown in to close the gaps and to bridge your doubt and what you perceive is truth in that moment. Once you think you have reached some absolute truth, you will soon discover the illusion inherent in that notion. It is better to say, for now I think I know the truth of this matter and I’ll take it on faith as I continue searching for new information, new knowledge, new understanding about this.
There are those people who believe in a mechanistic universe. That there are physical laws that behave in a way that explains all the phenomena that surrounds you. You might say that even for those believers there is a measure of faith to fill in the parts that are missing.
TM: Some people allow more room for faith and some it seems allow less room. But you’re saying that we all allow some room for faith regardless of our beliefs?
Master Buddha: Yes, I’m saying that. As science has progressed, it has revealed the vast knowledge that humanity has amassed in understanding your world. It has also revealed the vast ignorance. If you plot that on a time continuum you can see that the more that you know, the greater your understanding that there is so much more you don’t know. So, you take what you know and you project a little further into the future of the possibilities of things that could be true. That is a form of faith. If you act upon faith by assuming the projections are true, then it is meaningful. To speculate is to explore ideas about truth and to act upon faith that something is true is commitment.
TM: It seems to me that people of religious and spiritual faith rely upon teachings of the past to form their foundation, which requires faith that the teachings were accurately recording and interpreted.
Master Buddha: And that the projections of those truths are applicable to humanity today. There are many new teachings brought forth today and they are received similarly as were the teachings given long ago. There is a resistance to new teachings by humanity, because they cling to the old ones, the ones they were taught are true. There is a lag in time for new beliefs to be accepted.
TM: No way around that is there?
Master Buddha: Not likely it will change any time soon. It is human nature and probably a good characteristic if it is moderate.
Background to Conversation with Buddha and TMichael on Smoking Cigarettes
Note from TM: This topic may be a bit off from the typical spiritual topics we talk about, but it’s one that I have been wondering about for some time from a spiritual perspective. Many people I know, including myself, have struggled with trying to quit smoking cigarettes. We all know about the health issues associated with smoking, yet continue. Is there an understanding about smoking cigarettes that could help people quit?
Master Buddha: It’s a good topic because it bridges the material and spiritual realms. On the purely physical level smoking cigarettes is well known to create a physical addiction. That is not so difficult to understand or accept.
It weakens the breath capacity and reduces the nutrients that can be carried by the blood. Additionally, it carries with it potentially harmful chemicals throughout the body. This is the part that is established. Just a small amount of common sense can grasp this and say that it is not necessary to smoke cigarettes to achieve good health and that to the contrary it degrades health.On the emotional and mental levels other addictions are at work. Smoking also creates an illusion of power. And this is much harder to give up than the physical addiction. Power can mean different things to different people, but I mean it I the sense that one feels powerful to do whatever one needs to do. If one feels weak in some way, he will compensate by finding some way to feel powerful. This is why so many people begin smoking as a teenager—a time in which a great sense of weakness is experienced. Others experience the attraction to smoking during emotionally upsetting moments. Still others enjoy smoking when they are drinking alcohol (this is more complicated because the source of weakness is not so apparent).
It should be obvious that real power is not gained from smoking cigarettes, but that is exactly what makes it a illusion. For those who derive power from it, it is real, and thus an effective illusion.
There is a proverb that states, “The best way to eliminate is to substitute”. In order to do this in a way that supports substituting real understanding for an illusion, one must understand that the apparent weakness for which the illusion is compensating, can be addressed through self-awareness and contemplation. Some people, when quitting smoking, will substitute another substance or activity that supplies the power they seek. This could be substituting one illusion for another; perhaps one that is less harmful in other ways. The real benefit will come from a true understanding of the weakness perceived in the first place, and then proceed to cure it. Some people can make the behavioral change without this deeper understanding I’m speaking of, and for them this is a success. For others it requires the deeper contemplation and cure. Most likely the underlying feeling of impotence, or weakness, is affecting them in other ways as well and this approach will be more helpful.
The worst thing that can happen is for one to come from an approach of judgment, self-loathing, guilt, shame or anger at oneself. Be gentle with yourself as you begin to unravel the complexities that lead to behavior that is inherently harmful. At one point, however erroneous, the smoking habit derived from an intent to cope by providing a power that compensated for a weakness. Seeing that error in choice and seeking a new one confirms self-love and care.
Conversation with Buddha and TMichael: Integration and Disintegration
TM: I feel like for many years I have tried to integrate my human self with my spiritual self. At times I feel I have reached some measure of success only to witness set backs in the form of failures in my life—failures to live purely in my convictions, or failures in relationships, etc. How can we feel one moment in the complete bliss of integration and then later as if things have become unraveled?
Master Buddha: There is a natural progression toward integration that includes disintegration. It’s the same as when you try to affix one object to another and the seal is not set just right. Maybe there is debris mixed in the seal. Maybe there are gaps in the seal. Whether it’s obstruction or space, the seal is not complete and can be easily pried apart with the least amount of stress to one of the objects. Your human personality and your spirit work in a similar fashion.
Once you are inspired and begin to inquire about your spiritual nature you begin to receive information about spirit. You begin to look at your human life through a new filter. You begin to question your life and its meaning. This is the beginning of integration.
Recognize what is happening even in this beginning. There is a natural disintegration of your human personality, that is, due to new, incoming information from spirit your personality begins to fragment and parts begin to modify. Some parts you may let go—destruction. Some parts you may transform. But what was before is no longer the same. Disintegration within the personality has occurred. At the same time, integration has begun between spirit and personality. However minute that may be, it is an integration.
There is a series of cycles of integration and disintegration that occurs. This may go on for a period of time until the tension resolves and you conclude that you have settled on a point of integration. That is what you describe as the point of bliss.
That state persists for some time until there is a crisis, which disturbs that state. New tension is created and you begin the cycle of disintegration—the tension must be resolved. Suddenly you may realize that all the beliefs you adopted in your quest for spiritual alignment where somehow off. You shed them as a snake sheds his skin. Now you are disintegrating your spiritual concepts.
The process is one by which personality disintegrates, spirit disintegrates, the combination of the two in relationship disintegrates and then it begins a new cycle of integration.
TM: So when do we know we’ve reached the final point of integration? How long will this go on? It’s tiring and almost maddening.
MB: It is no different really than my opening example. It continues until you have properly removed the debris or space between the two objects of integration.
TM: Won’t there always be things we can’t or don’t know about ourselves, personally or spiritually?
MB: This is the great challenge of enlightenment—when do you reach that point? Who can know, perhaps one who is fully enlightened? But how do you know who that is if you are not fully enlightened yourself? Is that not the basis of faith? Faith covers the gap between what you know to be true and what you don’t know. It is the motivation to continue, because you believe in the process.
TM: Makes me want to give up at times and say this is bogus, a waste of time.
MB: Yes, and for a while you might do that. That’s a point of disintegration between your personality and your spiritual self. When faith or belief in the process can’t be the salve to satisfy the tension, then abandonment is a choice. That’s natural.
TM: So, that happens, then what? Why would I get on the treadmill again?
MB: You may not. You may decide to live from the perspective that your personality is all there is. That the state of personality is all there is for everybody and that is your world. You may find some new evidence that pushes you back into inquiry, which starts the cycle of integration and disintegration again.
TM: I’ve done both of those things. It’s wearing me out.
MB: Yet it continues. So, something within you pushes through the haze and says try again. What pushes?
TM: I don’t know, something happens and it starts again. Maybe I should pay attention, but it seems like before I know it I’m inquiring again.
MB: Well, let that be a mystery for now. As you progress through the cycle maybe that is revealed for you. Then it will be okay for a while until something else happens to disturb it.
TM: So, basically you’re saying that it is a struggle forever and I’ll either engage the process or I won’t.
MB: I’m not saying it’s a struggle forever. I’m saying that it’s a struggle for as long as it is and that it doesn’t really matter how long it takes. Until such time that your spiritual self can tap into its essence within your personality and transmute it into a reflection of spirit, you will go through various stages of integration and disintegration. Your impatience may serve you to keep trying or it may persuade you to abandon the process. Your choice.
TM: Yeah, I always come back.
MB: One simple truth is that you don’t really have a choice in the long run. You can abandon the process for a while or you can push too hard and feel frustrated. But your spiritual self is never dormant or absent. Spirit isn’t time-constrained, as is your personality. And that may be something you have to take upon faith. Maybe you already accept that, but have to just not think about it for a while. It doesn’t matter. You will eventually resume the cycle. That is the natural order of life on earth.
Background to Conversation with Buddha, Jesus and TMichael: The Differences between Religions
TMichael: I read this blog post (the differences between Jesus and Buddha on happiness) and asked Masters Jesus and Buddha to comment. What follows is their response…
Master Buddha: It is always amazing to me how the adherents of one religion can so easily dismiss the legitimacy of another religion with the slimmest of knowledge. I’m speaking here of how Buddhists the world over dismiss Christians as being fanatical and emotional. And in this one blog post we learn that isn’t true at all. Christians are just not very smart.
Master Jesus: I couldn’t agree more with you. Buddhists dismiss Christians. And on the scantiest of knowledge. I think it’s clear who is the smarter religionist. And it doesn’t begin with a ‘B’.
Master Buddha: While I fully respect your opinion and right to make such a statement, I think you should take it back.
Master Jesus: Who’s going to make me?
Master Buddha: I can recruit the Hindus you know.
Master Jesus: Well, you’ll need them because we all know what a push over Buddhists are when it comes to defending themselves.
Master Buddha: Your mother wears army boots.
Master Jesus: Okay, that’s going too far.
Master Buddha: Does that answer your question about how we view such topics? It’s petty competition between non-existent differences that make the adherents appear small and weak for engaging in such a waste of time and energy. Why do men and women of such fervent religious beliefs think that they must attack other religions in the way one toothpaste manufacturer attacks the market share of another? Can they not see that the aim of all religions ought to be the elevation of human spirit, which includes all humans?
Master Jesus: We love mankind. Every day we strive to bring humanity closer to the spiritual kingdom. Buddha and I work in tandem. There is no contradiction in our work or in our goals for humanity. I ask Christians everywhere to embrace the love of all religions and reject the pettiness of competition. It isn’t necessary to belittle another religion in order to promote one’s own. There is nothing better that comes from one religion that proves supremacy. It only displays self-righteousness when one attempts to demonstrate superiority of one’s religion.
Master Buddha: We represent love, kindness, compassion and unity for all humanity. That is our mission. Anything else that you imagine coming from us is pure mental illusion. It’s time to forget the differences you perceive. Or least explore the differences from a perspective of positive curiosity, not derision and ridicule.
Master Jesus: Our love is larger than any dispute that could arise over ideas planted in religion or politics. Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. Do you really want to spend your last days on Earth fighting over whose religious teachings are the best? We are unified. It is time for Christians and Buddhists and Muslims, and all religionists to lay down their arms and embrace one another as friends.
Master Buddha: We aren’t naïve. We understand why people fight over religious points of view and affiliation. It’s time to stop. We aren’t going to present eloquent arguments filled with platitudes to persuade people to stop. We just ask. Please stop it now. If you find any love and compassion in any religious teaching, then that is your starting point. Apply it now.
Background to Conversation with Maitreya and The Rod of Healing
TMichael: As I discuss in the FAQ’s, I used this exercise along with allopathic and alternative treatment when I had cancer. Within 3-4 weeks my stage 4 cancer went into complete remission. Several people have since inquired about the rod of healing. So I posed some questions to Maitreya after realizing I still didn’t understand very much about it even though I could attest its efficacy.
TM: What is the rod of healing (ROH) and how does it work?
Maitreya: It is an energy bundle that runs the length of the spine and corresponds directly with the nervous system. The nervous system controls all of the body functions as the communications conduit and likewise does the ROH do the same to stimulate the nerves, which in turn stimulate the necessary secretions and coordination of healing properties in the body.
To activate the rod of healing one has only to recognize his or her responsibility for personal health. This is not something that comes from outside oneself. The body is capable of producing all the healing necessary to maintain perfect health. The imbalances created are due to a number of factors influenced by ones disconnection with this truth from the time of infancy. As one ages and becomes more and more focused on outside stimulation the natural healing mechanisms atrophy. You may ask how is this so? It’s because the channels of energy that keep the body vibrant and healthy rely upon use, and use is reliant upon awareness and knowledge of what is true about one’s nature. There is no amount of outside diagnosis and treatment that can cover as thoroughly and intricately what the body through the informing spirit can know and do.
The rod of healing is a part of every human but lies dormant and atrophied due to lack of use because of over dependence upon outside treatment methods. There is a real predicament however and that is that outside treatment has displaced the ROH and therefore cannot be abandoned in most cases without deleterious results for a person. Each one will have to know his or her level of awareness and acceptance of the ROH. Where it is low, then reliance upon outside treatment should be continued until such time as there may be a substantial shift in awareness. Where it is high, then more reliance on the ROH is possible with good results.
TM: So how does one activate the ROH? Are you saying that you just have to be aware that it exists and it will work?
Maitreya: It works when: 1) you are responsible for your own health, i.e. you are mindful of your body and what you do to it and with it; 2) you are aware that your spirit is capable of managing your good health through the ROH and the body’s healing mechanisms. The degree of success you will have is based upon the strength of your acceptance and use of this knowledge. It will vary by person depending on his or her place on that continuum. It is never too late to work with it. The success prayer groups have experienced are an example of the strength of this power. Even though the power of prayer is external to the person receiving the healing, they activate the ROH by strengthening ones own resolve and personal spiritual power. If your spirit is powerful enough to animate physical life you must understand that it is capable of maintaining perfect health.
TM: So, it’s our ignorance and our seeking outside correction for poor health that prevents us from having perfect health?
Maitreya: Yes. And the correction for this will have to be gradual. As more and more people experience healing from within and there are studies that can document this truth then there will be wider acceptance and use. That’s how most things grow in proportion. Start with where you are and grow from there. As you have success share it with others and maybe they will do the same.
TM: There’s no instructional manual I suppose.
Maitreya: One isn’t needed. Allow nature to run its course and it will preserve itself to the extent it is supposed to. Excessive management by second-guessing the natural processes will interrupt it and sometimes produce okay results and sometimes not. It is a lot of unnecessary work. But again, humanity is where it is and it is not in a place to abandon its hard won medical achievements before it is ready. Rest assured humanity is moving in this direction and will merge the application of medical technology with the natural process within the next one hundred years. As humans gaze back on this time the treatments of today will be viewed with the same amazement that one living today might view techniques used two or three hundred years ago.
TM: I’ve received quite a few inquiries about money and requests to talk about it. There has been a great body of writing on this from a spiritual perspective. What do you say to someone who asks, “What is the proper relationship to money, how much to have, how to use it, how to get it, etc.?”
Master Buddha: First of all, there isn’t just one way to view this because each person has his or her particular orientation to money given his or her life path. Anything I say must be understood as general statements and then I can offer examples of individual circumstances to show how some principles may apply.
As viewed from the spiritual perspective, meaning from a non-material realm, money is as worthless as a bicycle would be for travel across an ocean. It is purely a human creation. So your question presumes a spiritual oversight that doesn’t exist except in the form of advice and counsel that may be offered from time to time. That is the spirit in which I present these ideas today.
Let me attempt to simplify the concept of money in relation to a person. Humans have decided that money shall represent a value of some thing. Those things may include the physically inanimate object (house, car, etc.), a personal action (one’s labor), a promise for future delivery of value (speculation), restitution for past value (grievances resolved), a gift of love or social obligation, so on and so forth. The second premise is that the value of money shall equal approximately the value of that thing in the exchange. Sometimes the values are not equal, and if they are too unequal, then one or the other person feels either elated or cheated.
The third premise created by humans is a system of ethics regarding transactions between one another using money or the thing valued as the currency. This is a point of departure between the diverse cultures of the world. The one dominant force has been the Western philosophy governing the use of money. The ethics of the Western system have varied over the past two hundred years, but for the most part they have represented an idealism that while noble in its aim has not achieved its goal.
TM: So is it possible to answer my questions?
Master Buddha: I’m getting there, but needed to frame my response for clarity. The proper relationship to money must take on a general perspective representing larger society (we’ll call general ethics) and the particular relationship of an individual to money. From the general ethics, the idea of freedom to choose one’s occupation and one’s level of income and expense, is I think the best arrangement. As we have discussed in these conversations there is a point that one must consider that individual freedom intersects with group harmony. This means that it is necessary for individuals to contribute to the whole in a way that brings harmony to the whole and doesn’t disturb the peace of the many. This is the greatest insurance for all. The current system in Western society doesn’t achieve this goal, but with modification it could.
TM: I’m not clear on what you mean. Are you saying that there needs to be a balance in interest between the range of individual freedom and the needs of the whole population?
Master Buddha: Yes. For example, in Western society a person is permitted to amass unlimited wealth. On the other end of the scale a person is permitted to starve to death or die due to exposure to the elements because he cannot afford shelter. What is preventing Western society from implementing safeguards at the bottom end of the scale?
TM: We don’t allocate budget for it because we’ve determined other things are more important.
Master Buddha: And the contradiction is that your idealism states that you cherish life above all. Your military runs to all ends of the earth to rescue those in peril. Your governments send aid to foreign countries in an attempt to prevent starvation and lethal diseases from spreading. Yet in your own domestic domain you have families living in such poverty that their lives are at risk daily.
TM: It isn’t a perfect system for sure and most Westerners will agree that we can do more to clean up our domestic programs.
Master Buddha: What do you think is stopping you from doing this?
TM: We have an overly complicated and increasingly corrupt political system that can’t philosophically agree on just how much we are our brother’s keeper.
Master Buddha: It is first and foremost the obligation of your governments, using the general treasury, to prevent starvation and health-related problems derived from poverty. This cannot be left to the generosity and goodwill of individuals. It must begin with your domestic sphere first. It is there that you work out the ethics of being your brother’s keeper as you phrased it. Once you have mastered that step then sharing that wisdom with other cultures is a natural extension.
TM: We have the resources to do what you suggest, but not the collective resolve to do it.
Master Buddha: This is true, but you asked for a perspective on the proper relationship to money. You will have to work out the politics in order to deliver a just relationship.
TM: Okay then, maybe you can state what a person should be required to do in order to receive assistance that raises his status above poverty. That’s where we fail; we can’t agree on that. Some people say we should be self-reliant and others want to give to others with little or no requirements for self-responsibility. So, what is the answer?
Master Buddha: Ah you see, now you are into the business of designing a society that grapples with such ethical obligations yet stumbles at the final step failing to complete the mission. If the US government felt the collective will of its citizens favored a system whereby no citizen would be permitted to fall into poverty, could they achieve that?
Master Buddha: Then it must be that the collective will of its citizens do not favor such a system.
TM: How many citizens create a collective will?
Master Buddha: Enough that under your political system you could legislate and implement the system.
TM: Then you must be correct. Sadly it must be true. But you still haven’t answered my question of self-responsibility.
Master Buddha: Unfortunately, there is no easy answer. Your society has through its own design created an array of citizens from the genius to the infantile. Your society is responsible on a par level with the individuals that make up society. It will take many generations of enlightened governance to correct the mistakes and injustices created by past policies and practices. It will likewise take time for individuals to climb out of their ignorance or unfortunate circumstances due to conditions beyond their control.
Wandering your streets are the insane and the helpless. They cannot take responsibility for themselves in any way.
You have many people who are indolent and averse to responsibility through personal predilection and familial training. They will have to be educated on a new understanding of their responsibility.
You have a growing number who have turned to crime and are either incarcerated or among the general population. They will have to be educated, and until they are they will remain incarcerated because you have no other way to assimilate them.
There are those who through no fault of their own have fallen upon hard times due to major shifts in the economy. They will need to be retrained in new occupations and helped along the way.
When there are enough enlightened citizens there will be a more enlightened government and they will realize the long-term commitment required to correct your system. It is a race against the clock.
If you do nothing to correct this situation, because as a society you think it isn’t your responsibility, then you will suffer the consequences of doing nothing. The consequences will include a greater divide between the economic classes, thus more poverty; less efficacy in minimum education achievement among the lower classes; increased criminal activity; reduction of individual freedoms due to crime prevention measures; compartmentalization of community along class lines further reducing the efficacy of government and the erosion of community infrastructure. You can probably project from there what will transpire next.
If however, you find the collective will to make a long-term commitment to correction, then you will begin to see minor changes for the good. It will take patience beyond one, two or three generations. That is perhaps the greatest challenge for a society that has come to expect immediate gratifications of its goals (even though this hasn’t really been the case).
TM: What can you say to the questions regarding individuals and their relationship to money? What are some guidelines to follow is really what I’m asking.
Master Buddha: As individuals you must graduate through levels of ethical refinement regarding the role of money in your life. What is good for one person may not be good or right for another. For that reason do not be hasty in judging others for their view in earning or handling their money.
As Master Jesus and I have maintained throughout these conversations, release judgment from your view. Find your relationship to money based upon your path and your understanding and allow others to do the same without inveighing their choices. When you have come to peace with your relationship to money then you may offer a helping hand to others who may wish to hear from you.