Category Archives: Peace

Gay Marriage: Buddha with TMichael

Gay Marriage,  http://conversationswithjesusandbuddha.com/gay-marriage/ ‎
Gay marriage

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.

TM © 2015

The Great Peace: Buddha with Zoe

The Great Peace, http://conversationswithjesusandbuddha.com/the-great-peace/ ‎
The great peace

Conversation with Buddha and Zoe: The Great Peace

Buddha: We are moving to a time where earth will be as one. A great peace will descend from on high, from on low and this peace will arise in those who are awake and those who are seeking to become awake. We are looking to help this process and this will indeed be speeded up. Speeded up by you, readers, as you choose to open yourselves to change, to love, to peace and work in your own lives to become centered. So for each of you who choose a centred life, one by one, you help choose peace, a new age. And we all thank you for this. There will come a time when there is a significant number walking the earth that will be able to pull us into their hearts. The mechanisms of this are with those who are seeking peace, seeking a different way of being. A harmonious one, a loving one, a joyful one and those that are taking the action to create a centered existence. So for all of you who wish to see the change be the change. These are words well known amongst several of you. Center your lives: not by changing what you do, but merely by focusing on how you do it. The new earth will not come about by the world becoming poets and philosophers. It will come about as each individual in their day to day lives awakens, makes choices and takes action to become the change, become the peace.

© Zoe 2015

Being Centered: Buddha with Zoe

Being Centered, http://conversationswithjesusandbuddha.com/being-centered/
Being centered

 

Conversation with Buddha and Zoe: Being Centered

 Buddha: We wish to speak to you today about extremes. Because extremes move in different ways from a perceived central point, are they any different? No. To clarify, if one is looking to get fit, becoming a couch potato could be extreme, exercising for five hours a day could be perceived as extreme. Are they any different? While the behaviors of a couch potato person and someone who is exercising five hours a day may seem radically different, extremes are extremes.

People who move into extreme behaviors are cut off from their center, so, although we are speaking about extremes, we are actually speaking about those who are devoid of center.

At Wimbledon, the most prestigious court is center court. I like this! One of the best thing or compliments that can be given to a person is that they are centered. Would you trust someone more or less if you described them as centered? Would it be easier to love someone more or less if they were centered?

Humans were designed to be centered yet many spend their lives rushing around in extremes. What do I mean? I mean that ‘centered’ means feeling strong, feeling safe and sound within your own being. How many people actually spend time practicing this within their day-to-day activities? Equally, as there are so few people who practice feeling centered, there are also fewer people who exist in their center; center is all there is.

I ask that all readers find their center. How do you know where your center is? It’s the mind state that makes you feel ‘centered’. I try not to play with words. Sometimes I resist the opportunities to play with minds other times I don’t. The irony is that it is the mind that takes one out of ones center! But let’s not toy here.

To get into your center stop, breathe. You can still do all that you need to do in your day-to-day activities. You can go to work, be at work, come home from work, cook, sleep: centered. You can wake up the children, feed the children, take the children to school, get on with your daily chores, collect the children, feed the children, feed yourself: being centered. Or you can become un-centered and end up in extremes whereby you are in a rush to get to work, rush to complete your work, rush to get home, rush to cook, rush to get to bed. Similarly you can become lost in the chores or lose you own center by focusing on the children’s centers. Are the children fine, are the children fed, are the children ready are the children this, are the children that? These are extremes. I will speak about child rearing at a different time for now it is suffice to say if you are lucky enough to be raising children physically, then be aware- as they say on the airlines, fit your own oxygen mask before you fit that of the child’s. In this case center yourself. A centered parent will raise centered children: simple as that.

So this is your message today from the center to the center, saying find your center. How do you do that? Stop, breathe, be present. Once you have this go about your day to day activities and you will be successful. Success follows center. Spend a minute now thinking about how mundane tasks feel when you’re centered and how mundane tasks feel when you’re not. Similarly think about a big event. How does a big event feel when you’re centered and how does a big event feel when you’re not.

This exercise itself should conclude the importance to you of being centered at all times.

© Zoe 2015

Be Yourself: Buddha with Zoe

Be Yourself, http://conversationswithjesusandbuddha.com/be-yourself/
Be yourself

Conversation with Buddha and Zoe: Be Yourself

Buddha: Lets speak more about mind. As you know there is no one conscious reality, there is no one consciousness. Instead, there are interlinking realities. And what is that interlinking reality? Love: love inter-relates all. What do we mean by love? The ability to be joyous in just being.

The flower is just a flower. A rose doesn’t try and be a lily; it simply extends the best of itself to try and meet the sun as a beautiful expression of the creative wonder of God. And this is what we want for humanity. If you are a rose don’t try and be a lily. If you are a lily don’t try and be a chrysanthemum. Simply be, learn to be.

There is nothing to do there is no way to be, other than through the suspension of mind. Yet, interestingly, it is mind that inter-relates all. There are many paradoxes to this as there are many layers of reality. What is real for your cat Zoë, is real. What is real for the bird that the cat is watching, is real. What is real for you watching the cat watch the bird, is real. What is real for me is the connective force that unites all of us, of which I am part, and the willingness for a transcendence. The transcendence of the current state of humanity. This current state is nothing but a state mind. When enough people change their state of mind there will be a change in the state of reality. This is not hard. It is easy to do and it starts with every individual taking account of their lives, their works and choosing to wake up.

Spending your time as a rose trying to be a lily is exhausting. Ultimately you will fail. But understanding that you are some sort of flower that through becoming peaceful with the self turns out to be a rose will be a wonder. And this is what we wait on: the return of the rose.

How do you know if you’re a rose trying to be a lily? It hurts. How do you know if you’re a lily trying to be a rose? It hurts. You are reaching for something that is beyond your form, beyond essence, beyond your blueprint, yet you bend and twist and dye, and contort. And ultimately there will be no peace, there will be no stillness, there will be no wholeness- there will only be pain for a rose cannot be a lily and a lily cannot be a rose. How do you know if you are a rose? You are a rose and you have peace. How do you know if you are a lily? You are a lily and you have peace.

What is peace? A fundamental feeling that all is well and all is well with you.

All that is not well can be resolved. Some things will take large efforts, some things will take smaller efforts. But ultimately only a rose can be a rose and ultimately only the lily can be the lily. To try and be something else is to inflict pain. This is not the purpose of a rose even though it has thorns! This is not the purpose of a lily even though its pollen can be toxic! A rose is a rose and a lily is a lily. Let that be for now.

© Zoe 2015

 

It Simply Is (Part 3): Buddha with Zoe

It Simply Is Part 3, http://conversationswithjesusandbuddha.com/it-simply-is-part-3/
It simply is part 3

Conversation with Buddha and Zoe: It Simply Is (Part 3)

Buddha: So once peace has been established, once there is recognition of it is, then there can be resolution. But this resolution need not be the end point, for what does this resolution mean? In some cases the end of suffering will come from having peace with what simply is. When the mind can let that go there can be an immediate and everlasting end of suffering with this issue. However, in other cases this will not be so.

There will be an immediate end of suffering and then there will come the realisation that action, rightful action, action borne out of the desire to end forms of suffering entering into one’s life, to end one’s karma with these particular issues will ensue. An example is, “Why, why, why, this hurts, this hurts, this hurts. I want this car, why can’t I have it. I feel so unhappy I can’t have this car. Life is poor, I am poor.”

When there is an understanding of it, there will be a resolution and for some this will mean an acceptance that a perception of poverty is acceptable. And for others there will be the understanding that, ‘Yes, it is and this is not the way I wish to live my life therefore I will take action’. But rightful actions are very different from the actions coming from the needs to satisfy our desires that will lead to suffering. So some actions will end suffering, some actions will lead to suffering.

This is why we ask you to consider the concept of rightful action. Does this lead me out of my karma of pain or does this lead me into another karma of pain? How does one distinguish which is which? One simply knows. If one is unsure one finds a place of stillness and asks the question once more. There is nothing difficult in this. If one is unwilling to find a place of stillness to ask a question of oneself, then one is creating karma of pain and suffering. This must be made clear. This is the end of this lesson.

© Zoe 2015

For It Simply Is Part 1 click here.

For It Simply Is Part 2 click here.

For It Simply Is Part 4 click here.

 

It Simply Is (Part 2): Buddha with Zoe

It Simply Is Part 2, http://conversationswithjesusandbuddha.com/it-simply-is-part-2/ ‎
It simply is part 2

Conversation with Zoe and Buddha:

It Simply Is Part 2

 

Buddha: The aim of my discussions with you, Zoë, is to bring stillness into the lives of many, and as I was on earth, to relieve the suffering of the many. The suffering that is just and unjust. By that, we mean the suffering that is created by us and that which life unfolds for us.

Man was not made to suffer. So why does he we hear you ask. Over-development of the intellect: plain and simple. It has become a muscle that has become too strong, too strong for the creative urges of man, too strong to be able to let go with any ease. Intelligence was given to you as your species came down to exist here on earth. Your gene pool was taken from that of the animals and you were developed, given the gift. Yet though the gift was given from God, from all that is, it has become what has taken you away from all is, and fundamentally this needs to be rectified. We need you now to use your minds to learn to train and control your intellect. To take that muscle and through work, through dedication, allow its control to become flaccid and its repartee- its ability to distinguish what is right and wrong in a situation- to remain. So if you like, what is needed is a lobotomy and this muscle needs to be halved in size. Once halved in size it will become equal once again and be able to balance with mankind’s other gifts, its creative urges, its flows, the intuition, and the instincts. There is nothing that cannot be achieved on earth. Not through the intellect but through the creative flow and then the utilization of intellect henceforth.

I listen to the suffering of many. “Why, why, why, why, why, why, why, why?” No answer comes. However, “Why, why, why? This hurts, this pains, this hurts, this pains, this hurts, this pains. I wish for, I wish for, I wish for, I wish for, I wish for.”

What does this get?

“Why, why, why, why, why, why, this hurts, this pains, this hurts, this pain, I wish for, I wish for, I wish for.”

The resolution to suffering is not within the mind it is in the end of mind.

This is short today Zoe and it is very straight. We end this suffering from the cessations of mind. By this we mean the cessations of mental desire. Pointless mental questionings that are incapable of answers. “Why?”, “Because.” “Why?”, “Because.” “Why?”, “Because.” “Why?”, “Because.”

From now on when someone asks, “Why”, say, “It simply is.” This need not be pain, this need not be suffering. Accept the simply is and find the peace there in. There is no movement from this point for mind, except to take you away from this point. When you are taken away from this point the suffering and pain will begin once more. “Why, why, why?”. “It simply is”. Find the peace from this point and be aware that only the mind can take you away from this and you will resume pain and suffering. “Why, why, why?” I needn’t go on now Zoe.

Do you know that all enlightenment is this simple? Goodbye for now.

© Zoe 2015

For It Simply Is Part 1 click here.

For It Simply Is Part 3 click here.

For It Simply Is Part 4 click here.

Money: Buddha with TMichael

Money, http://conversationswithjesusandbuddha.com/money/ ‎
Money

Conversation with Buddha and TMichael: Money

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?

TM: Yes.

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.

© Zoe 2015

Anger Management: Buddha with TMichael

Anger Management, http://conversationswithjesusandbuddha.com/anger-management/ ‎
Anger management

Conversation with Buddha and TMichael: Anger Management

TM: May I ask about anger and its role in our lives and relationships?  Will you begin with offering a definition of anger?

Master Buddha: What may seem obvious to most everyone is that anger is a reaction to not getting what you want when you want it or in the way you want it.  It can be your fault, or it can be someone else’s fault. The second reflex of anger is retribution or evening the score to recover what you didn’t get plus a bonus for having suffered the agony of anger and inconvenience.  There is also anger once removed, meaning on behalf of an injustice done to another for which you have a connection or affinity.  The reflex of retribution is the same.

TM: I have a difficult time knowing when to express anger, that is, when it’s appropriate and when it isn’t.  Sometimes I wonder whether or not anger is necessary or not, even though it seems to arise as an involuntary reaction.

Master Buddha:  Let’s start with the involuntary reaction part of your statement and then move to the rest.  Anger is a natural human emotion just like love, sadness, grief, joy, happiness, bliss, disappointment and others in the spectrum.  They arise spontaneously as a reaction to what is happening in your life.  This as a general statement is true for every human on earth.  Then how do we account for the differences in reactions among people?  Why do some people react violently to the slightest provocation and others almost not at all to severe events?

Humans share in common an emotional body that works in concert with your physical and mental bodies.  There is an influence based upon one’s past life history—what must be experienced this lifetime?  There is group connection—what must be worked out for this group of beings?  There is the influence of parents, family and community that impacts one’s emotional body and conditions its reactions.  Beyond these local influences, there is responsibility from humanity’s role on Earth.

The confluence of these many factors produce differences in reactions from one being to another.

As a social concern, there must be a range of acceptable reactions and for that humans have erected laws to regulate behavior.  Within those laws one will find instances that permit retribution resulting in death of the offending party that passes as justifiable because of the provocation of anger and the acceptance that that person is not liable for such reactions, or as is in some cultures, entitled to the justice of the extreme reaction.  Other cultures don’t condone anger reactions to that extent, but make some allowance for it that support the concept of it being involuntary if acted out spontaneously.  There are also social customs below the threshold of laws that regulate behavior.

To answer your question of whether or not anger is necessary, we must ask to what purpose is it necessary.

TM: Some people I’ve spoken to about this usually say that expressing anger is natural and involuntary and that it releases the energy from you and that’s a good and natural thing, then you move on.  Their assertion is that anger is within the constellation of natural human emotions as you just said and that we eventually evolve to the point that we can freely express anger without killing one another, but express we shall just like any other emotion.

Master Buddha:  Would you say that as a rule, expression of anger has the potential to be more destructive in its effects than the expression of joy or sadness?

TM: In some cases yes.  But maybe that’s because people overreact to some things due to repression of anger until they explode disproportionately.

Master Buddha: That’s possible, but let’s go back to your question to what purpose it serves and so is it necessary.  If our definition of anger described the circumstances of anger, then let’s answer what is anger energetically?  What purpose does the delivery of that energy serve?

Anger, energetically speaking springs from the desire nature, which in turn reflects human survival needs, and desires beyond the necessities of life.  Anger is the defender of those personal and group needs and desires.  If they are threatened, then anger arises to defend.  Energetically, it is linked to desire and it does not discriminate between basic needs and frivolous wants without the help of the mental body.  Anger at its root level, just is the defender that can be, when combined with mental energy, an impetus to aggression.

TM: In the desire nature and its list of wants, do you include things like dignity and respect?

Master Buddha: Yes, of course.  That is a matter of ego interpretation of necessities that we have covered elsewhere.

I wish to draw your attention to the fact that anger derives its force and origin from its role as defender within the human realm of physical, emotional and mental.

TM: From that are you implying that anger doesn’t exist in other realms, such as spiritual?

Master Buddha: I say emphatically that anger does not exist in the spiritual realm because there is no need that goes unfulfilled.

TM: What about the whole Lucifer rebellion?  That sounds like some needs unfulfilled.

Master Buddha: That was a matter of pride and desire, not of anger.  It was a calculated, creative execution of a perceived right of domain.  It failed.

TM: So spirits in the universe weren’t angry with Lucifer and his minions for disrupting and corrupting everything?  I mean it seems like a major conflict and you’re saying there was no anger involved and I find that hard to believe.

Master Buddha: What can I say other than what I know to be true?  There was disappointment in the whole affair, but not anger or retribution associated with anger.  There were consequences that were accepted with responsibility by all involved.

TM: Okay.  Please go back to your line of thought.

Master Buddha: Anger finds its origin in the human realm.  Given that, we can look for its necessity there.  Its purpose is to defend.  But is that necessary?

TM: I think I know where you’re going.  You’re going to argue that our desires aren’t necessary, neither is defense of them; so, anger isn’t necessary.

Master Buddha: That would be a difficult argument wouldn’t it?  Many people would disagree that desires are unnecessary.  What about basic survival needs?  Don’t those need defending?  Can’t anger be necessary for that?

TM: Yes, I suppose so.  But couldn’t they be defended without anger?  Why is anger necessary to arouse defense?

Master Buddha: Because it is.  This is where humanity is right now.  As the human race evolves closer and closer to its spiritual nature there will be a diminishment and eventually a disappearance of anger as the impetus for defense.  Over time there has been and will continue to be this gradual receding of anger.

TM: I’m surprised.  I never would have guessed that the official ‘Master’ position is that acting out anger is okey-dokey.

Master Buddha: Well, we have to cover this a bit more to qualify that position.  I think what you’ll discover is that our understanding of human nature encompasses a realistic perspective of long term evolution of human characteristics and traits.  The expression and use of anger as a defense mechanism is one.  There are others.

TM: I think I need some elaboration on this, because it goes against what I believe.

Master Buddha: And you believe?

TM: Anger is a natural emotion arising from our attachment to what we desire and feel entitled to have.  I don’t believe it’s necessary, but we are conditioned to express it, violently sometimes, and to accept it and actually be entertained by it. I believe there are ways to express anger without being harmful to others and that seeking revenge and retribution create more attachment to the experience.  I agree this is an evolutionary process, but surely we at the point where we can see that anger isn’t necessary so that we can explore other ways of providing for our survival.

Master Buddha: Does it make you angry that others can’t see this point and share your belief?

TM: A little.

Master Buddha: This is one of those conundrums for which we can’t assert what should be based upon what we’d like it to be—it just is what it is.  And at this point in human evolution there is a substantial number among the world population that experience anger differently from the belief you have stated and it’s going to take some time for the weight to shift.  In the meantime there is progress toward peaceful solutions among people who have recognized, if nothing else, that peaceful solutions grant more security to the protection of needs and wants than it does by using anger and retribution.  It’s a start.  You don’t make the shift by being angry or judgmental towards those who still regard anger, violence, war, or force as the natural solution to feeling threatened.  It is the natural solution for those grounded in the materiality of humanity, and that is the majority population of the world.

It will change over time through the enduring examples by those who have mastered peaceful solutions to threatening situations.  It will happen.  Patience is required.

TM: It always requires patience doesn’t it?

Master Buddha: Patience and a non-judgmental perspective.

© TM 2015

Sexuality In Western Society (Part 2): Jesus and TMichael

Sexuality Part 2,  http://conversationswithjesusandbuddha.com/sexuality-in-w…society-part-2/
Sexuality part 2

Conversation with Jesus and TMichael on Sexuality in Western Society (Part 2)

TM: We left off in the first conversation talking about infidelity, divorce, and the role of guilt, shame and judgment within a heterosexual marriage (also monogamous relationship).  What would you like to add to that part before we move on?

Master Jesus: What do you wish to know?

TM: Is there anything that husbands and wives, lovers, mates can do to better understand the contemporary shifts occurring around sexuality within their relationships that would help them provide more joy for themselves and their families?

Master Jesus: First of all, they can stop and recognize that there are many changes going on in Western culture and that as much as each one is a part of the shift each one is also affected by the shift.  This requires compassion for all, even when one feels more affected and less the one producing the effects.  This wouldn’t be so difficult if there weren’t so many changes occurring simultaneously in your society.  The compounding of so much cultural shift is devastating to sensitive ones and challenging to everyone.  There was a time when most people knew their place in society and knew the code of behavior that went with it.  This has been disintegrating for some time now and it is blurry for most people.

This is why you see a severe clinging to groups and organizations that emphasize the ways of the past.  It’s an effort to put the brakes on rapid changes.  So, for those of you who feel changes are not happening quickly enough to satisfy your desires, have compassion for those who feel it is happening too quickly and they want relief from the compression of fear.

I can tell you the number of prayers that are uttered each day to slow down society’s speed of change and to return to better days.  Also, I can tell you the number of ones that wish for it to speed up to get to the point of new awakening and joy.  The goals are the same; both types want peace and joy in their lives.  They have different tolerances and notions of how to get there.  Have compassion for each other.

TM: So, what is the most significant change with sexuality between marriage/life mate partners?

Master Jesus: The most significant change will be equality between the genders.  The imbalance of male dominance as the authority will give way to equality.  This is not easy, as has been evidenced over the past one hundred years and more specifically in the past fifty years.  Some men are reluctant to give up this power and some women are all too anxious to take it from them abruptly.  It will work out steadily over time.  There are a great number of people of both genders who embrace this and make it work in their daily lives even though they don’t see it routinely supported in society at large.  That will change as more and more people shift into this mode and more examples and reinforcement are evident.

TM: What kind of time frame are you suggesting?

Master Jesus: I’m not suggesting a time frame, but pointing out the process.  Time is shifting according to the acts and acceptance of all those beings in the process.  Understand the process and where it is going and do what you can to support and encourage it with love and compassion for how difficult it is for everyone.

TM: To continue with heterosexual relations, is sexuality between men and women more about social adjustment right now rather than sex acts (physically speaking)?

Master Jesus: It always has been, it’s just more exaggerated now given the major shift we just discussed.  There are the basic physical acts between partners and those are important in conveying intimacy, tenderness, comfort, passion, intensity, joy and an array of emotions that spring from each person and from togetherness.  But sexuality is not confined to those acts and represents attraction on all levels.  Whether or not this is registered, depends on the conscious awareness of the partners.  In other words, there are energetic exchanges occurring on many levels and some people are aware and others are not.

You’ll witness the current interest in tantric sexual practices, which is an effort to connect to the many levels of consciousness available.  The emotional level most people experience, but many still are blocked in this way.  Others are primarily attracted to the mental level.  These are represented by fantasy exploration and imaginative experimentation.  The spiritual level is rarely if ever experienced by humans.  Those who do experience it have a difficult time describing it to others because it is beyond your normal sensual range.

TM: Is the spiritual level more related to the emotional level?

Master Jesus: Yes, in that it is a hyper-feeling sensation.  Yet it is beyond the one-to-one experience of the physical sex act; meaning that what many mystics reported in their experience of rapture, a feeling oneness with all, is closer to the reference.

© TM 2015

For Sexuality and Western Society Part 1 click here.

The Passion of the Christ: Jesus and TMichael

Passion of the Christ, http://conversationswithjesusandbuddha.com/the-passion-of-the-christ/ ‎
The passion of the christ

Background to Conversation with Jesus and TMichael: The Passion of the Christ

This was my (TMichael) first conversation with Master Jesus and was prompted by the film, The Passion of the Christ.  In this dialogue, Master Jesus describes his point of view surrounding his death and the role of those who played a part.

I saw the film The Passion of the Christ not too long after it opened.  First, I saw the movie marquis and thought this should be interesting.  I’ve been on a sparse mainstream media diet for many years and so I didn’t know anything about the controversy surrounding the film. Natural curiosity pulled me in.

Later when I asked some friends if they had seen the film I learned of the swirling debate.  I jumped online and discovered more commentary than I had imagined.  Then I attended a panel discussion hosted by Tikkun magazine that featured an array of Christian and Jewish clergy.

All in all, what I was hearing seemed predictable.  Depending on the perspective of the speaker or writer, the grievances with the film reflected that singular point of view.  The same with the supporters of the film; it was somehow proof of their faith.

Try as I may I couldn’t resolve whether I was under-reacting or whether others were over-reacting.  After several days of deep meditation it became clear that what I wanted more than anything was to hear directly from Jesus.  The following conversation occurred with Jesus and me.

Conversation with Jesus and TMichael: The Passion of the Christ

TM: What do you think about the recent film, The Passion of the Christ?

Master Jesus: Hmmm…sounds like you want to draw me into the highly charged controversy over this film.

TM: Actually, I’m hopeful that you can clear up things for everyone.  You can sort of have the final word.

Master Jesus: I’m not inclined to pose as a film critic, but I am inclined to speak about the content and subject matter in a way that can shed some light.

TM: Please do so.

Master Jesus: There are a few things that must be said at the onset of this conversation.  I’m as present today in the world as I was 2000 years ago.  I serve among the Masters in world service to humanity. The record of my ministry is incomplete and at times incorrect, owing to the great number of interpretations through which it has passed. Nevertheless, the essence of peace and love remains the focal point for all who will embrace the teachings.  The records of the life and times of humanity during those days are also incomplete and at times incorrect owing to the authors’ bias and inability of present day people to grasp the cultural mores of the time.  There is much scholarly and layman speculation on the missing parts—a natural and admirable intent to make complete the story and an understanding of history.

TM: So, the fact that so many people are grappling with the meaning, context and impact of this film is natural and striving for a complete understanding is a good sign?

Master Jesus: It is natural for humanity to desire familiarity with their religious icons by interpreting the messages as best as they can.  Naturally in that process there will be disagreement about the interpretations.  When the level of disagreement reaches the point of personal and group acrimony, then it has moved beyond serving humanity and begins to destroy the fabric of unity among all beings. Unfortunately, the discussion over this current film has been divisive to that degree among some groups.  However, we can note that some groups have bridged gaps in their relationships as a result of examining the meaning of this film.

TM: Some people have told me they wouldn’t see the film because they think it is too violent.

Master Jesus: Then they shouldn’t see the film.  Seeing the film has nothing whatsoever to do with understanding the message I brought to humanity then and that I’ve brought through the intervening periods of time and into the present.  It is merely a creative expression of the filmmakers and their interpretation of certain events.

TM: What about the claim that the film portrays Jews in a historically incorrect light to the point of making them appear evil, which in turn perpetuates hostility from Christians?

Master Jesus: This is a misunderstanding that arises from the causes I mentioned earlier, namely incomplete and incorrect reporting of my teachings and of history itself.  Let me strip away the word evil and present a new word to describe what is meant by it.  Ignorance coupled with fear produces what is referred to as evil.  Scholars have devoted much time and energy to defining evil.  The term itself has become too emotionally charged to accurately reflect a meaning that can be applied to human behavior.  If it can be used to describe a political regime, religious leaders or a serial murderer, then its meaning has become too broad.  I offer a way out of this labeling.  To look upon a group or individual whose actions appear horrific to you and label them evil no longer suffices.  The labeling as such shows a lack of comprehension on the part of the one applying the label.  To label someone in a way that separates him from you destroys the fabric of unity in the same way I mentioned earlier.  To default to that label implies ignorance of the one labeling and a signal that hatred has sprung from ignorance and fear.  You can see the vicious cycle—ignorance, fear, hatred, separation, and destruction.  Evil is in the eye of the beholder. Where hatred is present, one will see evil.  But, I tell you it is already in the heart of the one producing the label.

TM: It sounds like your turning the tables and calling the righteous one hateful and the other, offending one justified, or at least free from scrutiny.  Does this mean that one’s actions are justified and permissible and not subject to scrutiny by social standards?  That if I brutally beat someone to death that I can expect society to embrace me and let me go unpunished for my actions?

Master Jesus: Society can and must define codes of conduct consistent with freedom for all.  It is not necessary to label one evil in order to create a just society.  What you asked in the previous question relates more specifically to a problem of labeling an individual or group as evil in order to justify all sorts of acts of retribution toward them.  Do you not think for moment that I didn’t choose my death?  The Sadducees played their role as did the Romans and as did all connected with me.  It was my choice to allow that to happen the way that it did.  No one was evil in my eyes because I love them all. I see into their hearts and minds and know them well.  I am their elder brother and know their mistakes and love them still.  Why would you do less in my name?

TM: I feel inspired and sad at the same time. So what can we do to better understand the role of this film and what it provokes emotionally among so many different people?

Master Jesus: The film itself is not important, as I stated earlier, it is a representative view of that time and those events by filmmakers.  It provokes discussion that could occur with or without the film.  It provokes emotions that already exist.  It provokes ancient prejudice and guilt that already exist.  The film doesn’t need to do these things, but it does because of the subject matter and what is in place around it.  The subject has been contentious on so many levels for so long now that it doesn’t take much to provoke an outcry.

The Jews didn’t kill me anymore than the Romans did.  That will be confusing to many who wish to pin the blame on someone so that they can seek justice in the form of revenge.  Again, this isn’t necessary in my name, and I’m the one presumably wronged here so my wishes must be weighed.  The longstanding enmity between Christians and Jews over this episode is unnecessary.  Jews are reluctant to drop their defense and Christians are holding on to a grievance that isn’t true.

TM: Forget about it.  Is that it?  If the Jews and the Romans didn’t kill you, then who did?  Are you saying you took your own life?

Master Jesus: I had a plan when I came into physical life just like every human being before me and since.  I carried out my plan just as every being before me and since.  I was consciously aware of my plan in the flesh.  Nevertheless, I faced the same obstacles as every being, namely, staying in my conscious awareness.  The greatest test for me was in my final hours before my death in physical form.  Could I remain conscious of who I am and what my purpose is on this earth?  Isn’t that true for every being?  Those who judged me acted out their own conscious awareness.  Their ignorance and their fear filtered their judgment and prevented them from embracing me and my teachings, just as it has done since and that it is now for the vast majority of beings. Will you judge your ancient brothers for their acts and claim yourself to be free of ignorance and fear?  My mission and purpose is not complete until I can demonstrate to humanity the strength of love and wisdom and the power of conscious awareness.  It is judgment that has been and will be your downfall.  Forever will you remain separate from one another.  It is worse that you take part of my teachings and use it to condemn your fellow beings.  It is better that you take all or nothing.

TM: To make sure I understand this, you’re saying that to be in full consciousness of whom I am and what my purpose is on earth is only possible when I let go of judgment of others?

Master Jesus: And to let go of judgment of yourself, which is equally important.

TM: So I’m not sure how to answer the question of who killed you and I have a feeling you’re not going to go there.  I guess what you’re saying is that it doesn’t matter.

Master Jesus: It doesn’t matter in the sense that you think you have to judge others and avenge my death in the flesh.  To do that is to oppose everything I represent.

TM: Why do we make such a big deal of these things?  The film I mean.  Why such dramatic hoopla about the risk of Gibson’s career and the actor who played you may never “work in this town again”?  That frenzy spills over into the religious circles as well.

Master Jesus: Because people think it’s important to be right.  Right in their point of view, right in their understanding of reality, right in their relationship to me and to God.  Being right often means making others wrong.  It’s that simple on the surface, but runs much deeper on racial hatred or religious intolerance.  Not only is it important to be right, but one must also weave a measure of justice into the arrangement by punishing those who are wrong.  It doesn’t have to be this way.  There is a movement among the enlightened teachers of all religions to put aside dogmatic differences and embrace the oneness of all faiths while still practicing the rituals of each.

TM: Are you behind this movement?

Master Jesus: Yes, along with other Masters.

TM: Will this recognition bring peace to the world?

Master Jesus: It’s a beginning.  Politicians have often used religious differences and the strong emotions of those differences to fuel their wars.  If there is a general sense of spiritual unity and religious peace it will make it more difficult to wage war among countries. Powerful leaders intentionally determined to wage wars to achieve their goals know that to control the emotions is to control the minds of their followers.  Our work begins with the heart.  A strong heart with pure intent of love and peace will withstand the sophistries of mental concepts put forth by those seeking after power.”

©TM 2015