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 Jesus and TMichael: Sexuality in Western Society (Part 1)
TM: I realize that we may not be able to cover this topic in one conversation, but at least we can start. Please talk about the role of sex in Western society. Specifically, what do you observe as the general state of sexual health among our population?
Master Jesus: This is sure to provoke more than a few people who stand in judgment of sexuality when it deviates from their spectrum of acceptable behavior. Likewise, those who feel that anything goes will likely rise in defense of their personal honor if Master Buddha or I speak disapprovingly of their behavior. You’re right in that it will require several conversations in order to present a full picture of the state of sexuality in Western society. It is not our intent to approve or disapprove of human sexual behavior, but we can speak to what we observe from a perspective of what is serving humankind positively and what isn’t.
TM: Okay, that’s fair enough. I didn’t expect either of you speak from a judgmental perspective, but certainly some folks hope that you will. So, back to my question, do you want to begin with an overview?
Master Jesus: Ask a more specific question and let it lead us into what you really want to know.
TM: It seems that over the past century we’ve come through some dynamic changes from a moralistic and conservative view of sexuality to a liberal, more open view. Even though I know that doesn’t represent everyone, I’m referring to the norm. Has that shift been beneficial to our society?
Master Jesus: Yes, Western society has made a dramatic turn, more so than you are implying in your question. Observing from our perspective it is quite astounding. Most people will agree that there have been some benefits as a result of the shift, while others believe it has planted the seeds of ruination for your society. As with most subjects, there is a little bit of truth found in all points of view. But let’s see if we can shed some light on the various parts to indicate what has been beneficial and what needs to be adjusted to provide future benefits.
First of all, it’s difficult to speak about human sexuality without carefully painting a context for each part. For this part, let us talk about heterosexual conditions within the institution of marriage and romantic relationships in which there isn’t a marriage.
It’s clear from our perspective that many benefits have accrued to married and unmarried men and women from the shift in attitudes about sex over the past fifty years. However, with the relaxing of judgment and guilt around sexual behavior there has sprung up a great deal of confusion. This confusion has contributed to a lot of stress and tension between men and women over their respective roles. Over time this will work out and the major benefit will be a sense of equality. This was missing before the shift and has been slowly coming after a sudden lunge forward. The natural reaction has been two-fold. One is an opening of the floodgates to celebrate the release of age-old restrictions and the second is a recoiling of restriction to maintain the old ways. There is a growing middle that represents the balance between the two extremes.
TM: I agree with your observation. But there still seems to be a guilt-shame axis running through sexuality.
Master Jesus: Yes, this is true. But keep in mind that it is less than it was only fifty years ago. And fifty years from now you will observe even greater erosion in the role shame, judgment and guilt play in the enforcement of restrictions in sexual relations.
TM: But there are some folks who will argue that shame, judgment and guilt are sturdy enforcers and that we shouldn’t allow them to erode. If anything, we should reinforce their power to keep good people in line and get bad ones back in line.
Master Jesus: Shame, judgment and guilt have been the faithful servants of a philosophy that people are inherently bad and need the threat of punishment in order to deter them from wrongdoing. The problem in that philosophy arises in that it forces a belief contrary to the true nature of humankind, which then conditions you to perceive yourselves in constant need of redemption. The fatigue that comes from such an exercise is understandable. But the greatest harm is that it stunts your growth because you are constantly vigilant for wrongdoing and judging one another in an effort to correct or prevent wrongdoing. Add to that you have identified things as wrong that are social conventions created out of ignorance in some cases, and then perpetuated through superstition.
TM: But some things that have become social conventions regarding marriage have served to build families and then community, haven’t they?
Master Jesus: Shall we keep the context to sexuality so that what I am saying does not get confused with statements about marriage in and of itself?
TM:Yes, that’s what I meant.
Master Jesus: Let’s take the social convention of sexual monogamy, or partner exclusivity within a relationship. This is for the purpose of forming a family unit comprised of a husband and wife with one or more offspring. It provides a tight unity and strength to weather challenges on many fronts, economic, health, etc. It does that while at the same time connecting to families once removed from the immediate family. This forms a larger family unit that again provides reinforcement to the core family unit. Containment of sexual partners to the husband and wife ensure this family unity by restricting the likelihood of offspring from various sexual relations.
What protects this arrangement is fidelity to one sexual partner during the lifetime of the family. What has disrupted this pattern is a loosening of the shame grip on divorce and the subsequent remarriage and combining of families from more than a single pair of parents. In some cases this new family unit shares the connection with as much grace as a family unit from single parentage. In other cases, this is not true. Infidelity is the chief cause of hostility between marriage partners and can last a lifetime. Fidelity is considered a sacred trust and when one partner betrays that trust, the sense of betrayal is felt by the extended family and in some instances by the community at large.
TM: I think wounded pride, loss of self-esteem, shame, embarrassment and ego also play a part in this.
Master Jesus: Without question this is true. However, those personal components are activated because of the larger context of social convention that defines what causes shame for an individual or disgrace upon the family.
TM: So, you’re saying what some folks argue is that shame of getting a divorce kept the family together through tough times and in turn preserved the family values of unity and strength.
Master Jesus: You keep leaping over the sexual issues and grasp for the marriage issues beyond sexuality. We can have that conversation if you like.
TM: Thanks for keeping me on topic. Let’s stay focused on sexuality because it’s expansive enough as it is. So, you were saying that infidelity, that is, marriage or romantic partners who don’t honor sexually monogamous agreements, create discord within their relationship and the family and is likely the eventual cause for divorce. Most people would agree. What’s the point?
Master Jesus: The point is that if you take the social convention of sexual monogamy as a sacred trust and then violate it, you begin the breakdown of that institution. If it becomes widespread, then more rapidly does it breakdown. Once shame is removed as a barrier to divorce the offending mate, then you compound the acceleration of breakdown. Shame and guilt once prevented the infidelity, but in most societies males were often excused from this public humiliation. Although, this isn’t entirely the case. Witness the standard that your politicians must withstand in this regard. The general public still holds the sacred trust of fidelity as an accepted standard for your leaders, while lessening its application to your peers. And divorce is still considered a shameful failure in some circles.
To summarize, you began with the question of what is the health of your general population in regards to sexuality. We have taken a part of that in order to avoid generalizing across all relationships. Now we are only talking about heterosexual relations; specifically long-term monogamous relations. We are discussing the role of fidelity to a monogamous agreement and the results of infidelity. Are you ready to continue?
TM: As usual I want to know where this is going.
Master Jesus: I ask for your patience. In order to have some understanding you must go through the exercise of discovering what your beliefs are around sexuality in marriage. There must be some context in order to gain that understanding and to draw out your beliefs.
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.”
Conversation with Jesus and TMichael: Conditions on Earth (Part 1)
TM: This being our second writing, where shall we start?
Master Jesus: We shall note for the record that we are beginning this series of conversations on Easter Sunday in the year 2004. That may be significant to some folks.
TM: Should it be significant and if so in what way?
Master Jesus: First of all, there isn’t a ‘should’ involved. It either is or it isn’t significant based upon one’s orientation to these things. For some people, Easter is a big deal, wouldn’t you agree?
TM: Yes. But I have to say that for me, it’s not really.
Master Jesus: You say that but it’s not entirely true. When you were younger, in adolescence, you went to a Christian church every Sunday and Easter was a big deal in your life. Even your father who rarely attended services attended Easter Sunday. So, it was a big deal at one point.
TM: True it was then but it hasn’t been that way for over thirty-five years. I think I can say it isn’t a big deal now.
Master Jesus: It’s okay if it isn’t. The one fact you can’t escape in the influence of religious practice on society is that the significance of major religious events is en-grained in your being like DNA imprints on your physical body. They affect you whether you are aware or not. Human consciousness on the whole is not an individual affair. You can increase or decrease the affect by conscious awareness. The affect is there nevertheless.
TM: So, I’m affected in ways I’m not aware? Will you elaborate and give an example?
Master Jesus: You reside in a Judaic-Christian society. On Easter and during the weeks preceding Easter there is a build up of energy in the form of thoughts and emotions based in ancient traditions and expectations. Every year this energy recycles, gaining momentum from the previous cycles. When enough people experience this recycling of energy they perpetuate it through their contribution. And so it builds over time. Even though you may not participate in Easter services, you experience the affects of others in your society who do participate. Because you participated as a young person your connection to the experience is greater than someone who has never participated. Even that person will experience something despite his/her religious orientation.
TM: There is an air of worship and reverence I sense on Easter.
Master Jesus: That’s what I’m referring to, although it may register as something else to someone else.
TM: How many other beliefs and mass experiences does this same phenomenon occur?
Master Jesus: Whenever there is a strong belief tied to an emotional commitment with a large number of people, sustained for a long period of time, then this phenomenon occurs. Sometimes there are competing thoughts existing at the same time. When this occurs collectively you feel the energetic tension of opposition. This is the great duality that plays out constantly in human affairs. There is a saying to avoid politics and religion in polite conversation. That is recognizing the deeply engrained opposition and emotional force behind the tension—it is uncontrollable at times. It is reserved then for a different arena; one in which conflict can be explored.
TM: Is that why it is so difficult to change the way we do things in our society even when they are destructive?
Master Jesus: Did you have a particular example in mind?
TM: Yes I do. I’ve been thinking about our economic system of capitalism and how it has deteriorated over time. I see the initial guiding principles and see how it was altered. Along with many other people I want to change it so that it serves everyone, but the forces opposed to change seem enormous.
Master Jesus: What would you change about it?
TM: It’s almost too much to list here. In short, capitalism cannot be just about more—producing more, consuming more, pursuing more wealth for the purpose of perpetuating the cycle of production and consumption of more. We have to integrate higher values into the equation. I had a friend say to me that he thought that maybe the destruction of the Earth and many or all of the species was the right path and the inevitable outcome of this life experiment, and maybe then new life springs from that and a new cycle begins. He is a well-respected, financially successful businessman. When I heard him say that I began to understand the rationale behind the opposition to change.
Master Jesus: So, is your friend correct?
TM: I’m working from the premise that we don’t have to destroy everything if we have a consciousness that is inherently creative and can alter our path creatively to support life in an ever-changing dynamic.
Master Jesus: What if you’re both correct? What if these two points of view are true, then what?
TM: Then it’s a matter of choice. Our society can choose one or the other.
Master Jesus: And you’d like society to choose your point of view?
TM: Well, yes I do.
Master Jesus: And your friend would like it to go his way?
TM: Yes, I believe so.
Master Jesus: Then will you and your friend continue to support your respective points of view in how things work out in your society?
TM: I suppose we will unless one of us changes our mind.
Master Jesus: Then this is how it is for everyone on Earth at this moment. It’s about making a choice. Will you destroy life as you know it or will you creatively re-frame it? Does that seem over-simplified?
TM: I was hoping for a little more help I suppose. Maybe you could tilt it one way or the other.
Master Jesus: I guess you can say that I’m working on the side of humanity, which by the way includes your friend and all those who believe as he does. My work has been and is dedicated to assisting humanity in its decisions about living. A major decision is facing humanity now. Will you collectively choose destruction, death and eventual rebirth, or will you choose the next evolution of life from this point. There is no judgment either way, good or bad.
TM: You almost sound indifferent.
Master Jesus: You really want me to choose a side don’t you?
TM: YES! Choose, validate my point of view and give me the strength and courage to fight these bastards!
Master Jesus: And what about your friend? Shall I tell him I support his view so that he is encouraged as well? Or would you prefer I tell him he is wrong and he better get with the program, or else?
TM: Or else what?
Master Jesus: Or else he shall burn in hell of course. Isn’t that what happens to people who don’t get with the program? I’m pretty sure I hear that message quite often, throughout the world and from almost every religion, and evoked in political circles as well. I guess we’ve moved beyond polite conversation haven’t we?
TM: I think if you just simply told my friend and his fellow believers that their path of destruction is wrong, and then they would change because it’s coming from you and you’re the man. They aren’t convinced if I say it or if others in my tribe say it. But they’ll listen to you.
Master Jesus: Really? Why would they listen to me? What am I offering as proof that what you want is right and true for them?
TM: They will accept it on your authority. You are Jesus. In case you’re not aware, that carries a lot of weight. I think they would yield to your point of view.
Master Jesus: Believe me I’m aware of the weight I carry. So, it’s that simple. If I appear on Earth and say to humanity, listen, here are a few things I’d like for you to do at this time, then you believe that everyone will respect my authority and follow those simple directions?
TM: Well, not everyone, but enough of them to swing things the other way.
Master Jesus: Your way?
TM: Yes, for the umpteenth time, my way.
Master Jesus: I just want to be clear about whose way it is.
TM: Since you’re such a stickler for this distinction, many of us who believe this is the right way draw that belief from your teachings. So, I guess we assumed it was also the way you believed was right.
Master Jesus: I’m not sure I remember in which lesson I encouraged you to ‘fight the bastards’.
TM: Touché. But that’s just my emotion speaking. I’d rather not fight. I’d rather you persuade them with your magic and then we could all live happily ever after.
Master Jesus: Again I ask you, why would they listen to me if they believed I was on your side opposed to their beliefs?
TM: You are beyond humanity and know things we don’t. You are the man, the boss, he who rises from the dead. They will just be relieved to know you really exist and that you have an opinion on these matters. Of course they will follow what you say.
Master Jesus: They don’t believe I really exist?
TM: Maybe some of them do, but they think you’re returning some day and you’ll set the record straight then. But until then, they are not going to follow your teachings unless you explain it to them in modern terms. So, I guess I’m asking you to reveal yourself now and tell it like it is.
Master Jesus: You mean in your terms?
TM: Why don’t I just ask you to define it in your terms whether or not it resembles mine? I’m really not caught up on it being my way.
Master Jesus: Okay, I’ll do that for you. It’s a long story are you ready for that?
TM: Sure.
Master Jesus: Long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away….sorry, different story. But one closer than you can imagine to the real one. All of these stories have their origins in truth. There are many entry points for stories because there isn’t a beginning you see. At least there isn’t a beginning that we can identify in words that will express humanity’s story. We can also include humanity’s spiritual journey and that gets us closer to a beginning, but even that isn’t completely a beginning. I’m emphasizing this beginning business because humans are tethered to truth having a beginning and anything that doesn’t have a beginning must be false or non-existent. You’ll have to accept that your story doesn’t have a beginning or an ending. Are you with me so far?
Conversation with Jesus and TMichael: Loneliness and Love (Part 2)
TM: Is it an addiction?
Master Jesus: Of course it is. You cling to the old story out of comfort in the fact that it is known, while the new story isn’t known. Humanity has struggled with this dilemma for eons. Always there are those who support change and those in the majority who resist it. This is built into the evolution of the species. If change was too rapid, the status quo might never reach its peak of efficacy. Remember the status quo was selected as the story to abide by at some point. When it begins to wear down in efficacy a new way is discovered. Those comfortable with the old way resist the new way while the others champion the cause of the new way. The tension is created and at some point things change. The addiction is the rationalization that something is good for you when it has passed the point of being so.
TM: So loneliness is an addiction?
Master Jesus: Loneliness is an experience of what love isn’t, which leads to a bridge experience of hope that leads to the promise of love. Back and forth it goes. It is the story that is addictive; the experience of loneliness is part of the story.
TM: Easier said than done to change it. How do we just let the old story go?
Master Jesus: That’s not easy. But consider that it starts with awareness that the new story may be true. Then gradually you begin to notice evidence of the truth. Over time as you welcome the truth the old story wears down until it no longer holds you in its grasp. The ones who understood the truth and who agitated for change usually go through this process too. The timing is different for everyone.
TM: It seems overwhelming at times, the idea that we have so much to understand in order to alter our present course. Sometimes the will to keep things the same over powers the forces of change. But you’re saying it has always been that way?
Master Jesus: Yes, and every generation thinks it’s worse for them; that the stakes are higher. By the way, the forces of change challenge the bedrock of status quo. The energy of the status quo is not so fluid, having crystallized over time. I say that metaphorically to underscore how thought forms behave.
TM: May I change the subject given the subject of change?
Master Jesus: See how easy it is?
TM: What are the greatest expressions of love that you observe in our culture of modern times?
Master Jesus: There are expressions of love through individuals and through institutions and they are in abundance throughout the world every second. Believe it or not it is the predominate emotion.
TM: Really? It doesn’t seem that way. I thought you said in our last conversation that the other energies were stronger right now and that you guys are trying to strengthen love to make it dominant.
Master Jesus: We are strengthening the manifestations of love, so that when the force that comes in behind it comes, love will be expressed so fully that everyone will experience it. It’s not what you observe so much because of the filters of observation. To many, expressions of love are signs of weakness, or at the very least non-productive. I observe the intimate moments between a parent and child, which is possibly the most intense expression of love. There is romantic love that for some is the only expression of love that they have ever known. There is the expression of love between friends; that love being rooted in loyalty and forgiveness and most closely imbibed with no conditions.
When I witness communities coming together to help one of its members through a crisis; that is an expression of love. An act of creation inspired by love can be a beautiful song, a painting, a home crafted with the hands of its inhabitants or a building 50 stories high that embraces the dreams of its residents. I find expressions of love in the works of many. You call it survival, but I say that it’s love. Providing for one’s survival is love. It has been distorted and made into a material quest for more, but it is nevertheless the ultimate expression of love for one’s self. It doesn’t matter if it is used to gratify the ego or punish one’s neighbor or competitor. It is an act of love to survive.
TM: Hang on just a second. You’re saying that love can be used to gratify egos and punish people and that’s okay?
Master Jesus: I’m saying that survival is an act of love, perhaps the ultimate act. The act itself is not diminished by misinterpretation.
TM: So, if someones intent is to survive, that’s love. And if they happen to kill a few people along the way, that’s okay?
Master Jesus: Hmmm…. that’s a bit extreme isn’t it? We’re talking about love and you’re mixing in attributes of what love isn’t. I appreciate the confusion that exists around absolute rules and definitions. That is what humanity wants you know, precise definitions and guidelines. I’m sorry to disappoint you in that regard, but it doesn’t work that way. Every time you create a black and white answer to a complex system you inevitably end up with contradictions in practice.
Let’s take these one at a time. Survival is an act of self-love. Providing for one’s loved ones for their survival is an act of love. The next part of your question then moves to the means of survival; how one goes about securing the provisions for survival. The means to an end debate has gone on for some time, but hasn’t really been decided has it?
TM: It has for me, although it is a major struggle at times depending on how refined you make it. I wouldn’t kill someone in order to get food or water.
Master Jesus: Let’s say a group of people in your community formed a militia and commandeered the food and water supplies. They are determined that only certain people are entitled to these supplies and the rest shall perish through starvation. In a sense, they are killing you and others like you. Assume you have no other outside resources. Is it self-defense for you to harm them in your quest for survival?
TM: I don’t know what I would do. To do nothing means I would die and if killing them was the only means to survive myself, then that doesn’t seem right either. What’s the right thing to do in that case?
Master Jesus: There isn’t a right thing to do in this case. There is only what you would do and what they would do. We’re assuming this scenario from your perspective of survival. But what if we peered into their perspective and discovered that their actions are necessary to the survival of the community because they have discovered that there is a lethal, communicable disease running rampant throughout the community and they are able to isolate the infected ones from the healthy members. The food and water provisions are likely to be disrupted because of this calamity and so a quarantine of the sick ones and rationing of the scarce provisions is the only way for the healthy members of the community to survive and rebuild the community. Should all the members of the community perish because they haven’t the will to allow the ones with a lethal disease to die without wasting their means of survival?
TM: These are the scenarios we pray we never have to face; the stories of stranded expeditions where people resort to cannibalizing to survive. It hurts to even imagine what I would do.
Master Jesus: We have examined an extreme case that most people never have to face. But by degrees from this, people do experience it in some form or another. That is why it is so difficult, for example, for a wealthy person who is many degrees from starvation to understand the plight of those who are inches from starvation. People don’t know to whom they should attribute their good fortune to survive comfortably. Some thank themselves, some thank God and some thank others. Others don’t know whom to curse for their misfortune.
TM: As of this writing, the aftermath of the tsunami that struck countries in the Indian Ocean bears witness to much suffering and at the same time much compassion by wealthier countries. What can you say to this situation?
Master Jesus: You’re right the suffering is immense and the outpouring of aid once it was realized the amount of devastation has also been immense. This is an example of what I’m talking about. The next step is to recognize the chronic suffering by hundreds of millions of people throughout the world every day. In some cases emergency aid is warranted, but for the most part it is the long-term commitment of resource sharing that is needed. The tension exists between the aggressive tendencies of humanity against the tender heart of humanity. This can be measured by the level of fear in the minds of those in control of the resources. The greater their fear, the more they rely on aggressive tendencies (even though they’re couched as defensive). As fear is diminished, so they are open to loving response.
It’s rare to find an individual with the capacity to share what they have with others. Sometimes their sharing is limited by their fear that maybe they won’t have enough for themselves when the time arrives. Sometimes it’s because they don’t know where to begin. Sometimes they follow the institutional giving route that makes it easier to identify to whom to give and how much. Groups behave in a similar manner. To the government sharing add the component of strategic politics. Sharing starts with increasing individual capacity for sharing by reducing fear. For this reason individual awareness is a major focus of spiritual work.
Background Conversation with Jesus and TMichael: Love and Loneliness (Part 1)
This is the third conversation with Masters Jesus and Buddha. I’m never sure how it’s going to start. I sit. And wait. I think of things to say but they’re not really the things to say only forced ideas that my mind impatiently pushes into the foreground to get it going. But then a question springs up and that’s the beginning.
Conversation with Jesus and TMichael: Love and Loneliness (Part 1)
TM: Why are people in my culture so lonely and are people in other cultures lonely too?
Master Jesus: That’s a good question. Relevant for many people, yet misunderstood in this age of plenty and hectic daily living. As I look at the times that have passed and note that throughout human history and human suffering, never has there been as much loneliness relative to so much material and social progress. How could this be?
TM: That was my question.
Master Jesus: Don’t you have an idea why it is so?
TM: I don’t really know. I observe people who are lonely and I feel sad for them. Sometimes I see people who are surrounded by friends and family and still they are lonely. They’ve somehow lost contact in a way that they don’t know if they exist or not I suppose. I’ve had moments when I felt alone, but they seemed fleeting like a day or two and then I remembered something that connected me and I was back.
Master Jesus: Do you imagine hope has anything to do with the feeling of loneliness?
TM: I don’t think so, but since you brought it up I imagine that you think it has something to do with it. Do you?
Master Jesus: No I don’t. But I can tell you that people who are experiencing loneliness feel as if there is no hope for them. They are hopelessly isolated.
TM: If that’s so, then hope does have something to do with it.
Master Jesus: Really? And how is that?
TM: Well, if there’s an absence of hope, then hope has something to do with it then hope has something to do with it—the reason why they’re feeling lonely.
Master Jesus: What if they’re wrong? What if hope is just something that fills the gap in a perception of life filled with holes? What if hope merely replaces for a moment the underlying sense of despair that is the theme of a disjointed view of life?
TM: Yes, but that is the point of hope. It’s sort of a wild card, a get out of jail free card. It bails you out when you don’t know exactly what has you down, whether it’s loneliness or depression or sadness. Hope is a handy antidote.
Master Jesus: That’s an interesting way to view it. I see love fulfilling that promise. So is hope a bridge then to something else?
TM: I guess so in a way. It’s getting out of someplace, an emotional place that feels yucky. I’d say it’s more of an escape “out of” rather than a bridge. Although I think in order for it to work, obviously it has to be a bridge to something better than the thing that one is getting out of. But since you brought up love, how is that different from hope? Isn’t it the promise of something better but in a more generalized way?
Master Jesus: Love is more than the promise of something better. It is all there is. Any other state is a creation of someone who isn’t connected consciously with the only state there is. So that that doesn’t confuse you, let me state it another way. When you are experiencing loneliness, fear, doubt, depression or sadness, you have created those states, but they’re not real. They’re illusions. Love is real and the only state.
TM: When you say they’re not real and love is, what do you mean? What does ‘real’ mean?
Master Jesus: The limitations of language are real. ‘Real’ means the genuine thing, the enduring, absolute thing. It is the be all, end all. There can be no other. Something is unreal when it poses as something real. Sadness poses as reality, and so does loneliness. Those states pretend to be real to give you the experience of what it would be like if they were real.
TM: That’s fine for you to say, but how can we know that is true? When people are lonely or sad they are those things. That is a real experience.
Master Jesus: I see how you trap yourself in believing that those states are as real as love. Let’s say that only one thing can be real. Let’s also say that everything other than that thing is unreal. The only reason you would believe that the unreal things are real is that you believe the real thing is unreal.
TM: Now you’re messing with my head. I don’t follow you. I know love is real. When I experience love I know it and it’s real. Then there can be a moment when I experience loneliness and it’s different than love and for that moment it is real and love isn’t activated or present, at that moment, so the other thing is and it’s real. Why can’t they all be real?
Master Jesus: So, by your reasoning all things are real and none are unreal?
TM: Yes, I guess that’s true.
Master Jesus: But only one of them can be real at one time, is that it?
TM: For the most part, yes. But I think there are times when I experience more than one state at a time, or there’s some overlap. Often I can sense the transition from one state to another.
Master Jesus: What causes the shift then, from one to another?
TM: I don’t know, it just shifts. Thoughts trigger the shift I suppose.
Master Jesus: And you create the thoughts, is that correct?
TM: Yes.
Master Jesus: And you create the thoughts with the intent to shift from one state to another, or is it involuntary?
TM: Well, mostly I think if you’re depressed or lonely then you’re motivated to shift out and so it’s a conscious act. If you’re in a happy or joyous state and you start to slip into another state it seems more of an unconscious act. I mean people basically want to be happy and so they strive to stay that way. If they’re sad they try to get to the happy state.
Master Jesus: I noticed you used happy and joy, not love. Why is that?
TM: I remember what you’ve said, that happy and joy are states of love.
Master Jesus: So does that make love a meta-state?
TM: Could be I guess.
Master Jesus: If love is a meta-state and happiness and joy are states that reflect love, then what meta-state does loneliness and despair reflect? Or do you consider them to be meta-states?
TM: I consider them to be undesirable states. But I don’t know the answer, maybe they reflect evil.
Master Jesus: Now we’re getting somewhere. So, you believe then that love and evil are the meta-states and from those the others come into momentary reflection?
TM: I wasn’t aware that I thought that, but maybe I do or maybe I just don’t know and you’re putting words into my mouth. I have never thought that deeply about it. I guess I’m like most people I just live my life from one state to the next trying to stay a little longer in the good ones and avoiding the undesirable ones.
Master Jesus: Well, that’s an honest answer and one that represents the majority, if not all, the human race. But surely you have thought deeply about these things, as have others. Is it that you don’t trust the conclusions you’ve reached?
TM: I think it’s more like I’ve never really concluded anything. I resort to the old story of love and evil, good and bad, happy and sad, because that’s easier than risking a new story that may not be true. And at least the old one is accepted by nearly everyone.
Master Jesus: It’s time to risk a new story. I think you already have, but you’re not sure whether or not you want to tell it. What if you’re wrong, right? Then you’ve duped yourself and everyone else who believed you. I’ve told it and others have told it. It gets changed a little here and there so that it looks more like the old story to make it more comfortable for everyone. So, I’ll tell it again.
TM: Please do. I’m willing to listen. Is this going to answer my original question about loneliness?
Master Jesus: Yes, and more. Love is all there is in this universe. It is the meta-state. Every other state of emotion you experience is either a reflection of love, or it is a state you have individually and collectively created in order to experience that which isn’t love. Evil is the creation of humanity and is unreal. It appears real because you believe it is as part of your collective agreement to do so.
You experience life one moment at a time on Earth. You experience life on more than the Earth dimension. The meta-state of love is on all dimensions. You create within the realm of Earth during your incarnation here. Your creation does not extend beyond this dimension. You can choose to create with love or you can choose to create with that which is not love. At the point when your creation is purely from love then your boundary of creation will expand. That is the moment we are all waiting and working for.
The challenge of humanity is to synthesize all that is in your human nature with all that is in your spiritual nature. Love is in both and will temper the fusion. Give up your addiction to your own creation when it isn’t in alignment with love.
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.