The Devaluation of Virtue

        The truth of the matter is that people often do not do better because they do not see that the results are worth the effort.   Please note that I didn’t say the reward.  Most people do not automatically seek reward for doing ‘good’.   However, they need to know that there is a result from doing a good action that equates to the effort or perceived sacrifice involved.  This is a paradigm that is useful for a time while the adept is traveling the path but eventually she will choose to manifest positive qualities out of love for the virtues themselves rather than for the effect that those virtues may have.

        ‘Let us do evil that good may come of it.’  What a illusory proposition.  Let us shower the world with good by doing mountains of evil.  The real problem with that is that you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear and you can’t get good from evil.  Even if it appears to be so.  Yet this is the proposition offered up by the denizens of evil through systems of behavior like ‘situational ethics’, a humanistic approach to ethics and similar constructs in psychology, sociology, etc..  These systems of behavior and belief are made possible by the devaluation of the virtues.

        Let’s take Truth for example.  As a cultural trend we no longer value truth for itself as we once did. It is considered ‘naïve’ to do so.  Nowadays we often use truth only if it accomplishes what we want in a given situation, as a means to an end.  If it doesn’t bring us to the desired goal then we discard it in favor of our personal goal.   When we are faced with a situation that demands a choice between truth and falsehood we start from a level playing field rather than assuming truth has some intrinsic value that places it ahead of falsehood when we weigh our choice between the two.  That is to say we don't automatically lean in favor of the truth.  If we feel that, from our limited perspective, the truth will have a more negative impact than a lie we often choose to lie, feeling that lying is the ‘better’ thing to do.  The lie becomes the moral ‘right choice’.
        How is this even possible, that the lie can be thought of as the moral choice?  Because we are concerned only with the end, not the means.  Because we no longer give truth an intrinsic value, a value that it carries because it is real, simply because it is ‘Truth’.  It only has value if it serves to bring about what we perceive as ‘positive’ results when we use it.  This is called ‘situational ethics’.  Given that – if deciding between truth and lie is dependent only on the situation - then Truth no longer has any intrinsic value at all and the moral line between truth and lie, the quality that makes the one a virtue and the other a vice, is wiped out.  Either is as good as the other depending on what it is perceived to accomplish.  Lying becomes as much a virtue as telling the truth.  In fact, they cease to exist as separate concepts.  If there is no difference then there are no separate definitions and they both exist only as simple statements of no value.
        We as a culture have learned to degrade, to disregard or to treat as non-existent, the intrinsic quality of ‘good’ in many of the virtues which society used to hold as worthy of emulation for their own sake.  When we do that we become morally rudderless for if no virtue is any better than its’ absence then how are we to judge any level of good from any level of evil.  That is to say when we are faced with a choice, if we do not accept that truth has any more inherent value than a lie, if we remove all of the intrinsic ‘goodness’ value from truth, then we are only a step away from removing that same value from our intent.  Are we not, when we dismiss that moral evaluation from our chosen action, also then creating an environment wherein we will be more willing to dismiss a moral evaluation from our goal as well?  Why is this important?  Because no matter how we try to convince ourselves otherwise there is a vital, inherent difference between the values that we have labeled as virtues and those we label vices.  The difference is vital because it is the primary cause for valuing the one over the other.  It is the reason that virtue has value in and of itself.

        Those qualities that we call virtues have their value, their very existence, because they are the qualities of the universe, which gets its' structure from the Personality of God.  They are, therefore, the qualities that resonate in harmony with the nature of the universe itself.  More, they are inherent in the very structure of the universe because they are inherent in the very Personality of God.  So, when we manifest these virtues we are manifesting the personality of the universe itself, the Personality of God.  This makes the virtues of value to us on an individual level because as we manifest these virtues we become them and as we become them we come into harmony with the nature of God.  So, there is a great need for us as adepts to hold ourselves to a standard of virtue both for ourselves and for the planet as a whole.
        But I, for one, have often found it hard to continually shift gears from moment to moment, always striving to choose that which is 'like God'.  I had a friend who was at the time a chela on the path.  I remember what he said when he left his spiritual striving.  He said that there were just too many conditions to fulfill - that it was just too hard.  Truth, Purity, Love - ready for any test, always with an awareness of spiritual poverty, in harmony, balanced, etc. -  especially when I didn’t always know what would be virtuous at a given moment - could be daunting for me.  "Be ye perfect even as your father in heaven" can be daunting.  But there are ways to approach all of that without spiritual overload.
        I found that if I simply picked a single virtue and held to that constantly it bled over into all of the others.  As you might guess I picked truth but you could as easily choose mercy or justice, purity, whatever.   I found very quickly with truth that it encompassed all of the others.   Justice is truth in action.   Purity is truth’s environment.  And so on.  Some virtues require a deeper understanding of truth before their relationship becomes obvious but all of the virtues are simply different aspects of the personality of God so they are all related and striving to manifest one brings you closer to all of the others and to God.  It is like the light when shone through a prism.  All of these traits of God’s personality simply reflect Him and striving to hold true to any one of them will bring you closer to God.
        You will also find that the effort to out-picture a single virtue can lead to great personal strength in the face of temptation to fall back.  It can bring clarity to the dynamics of any test we may encounter on the path as well so that the choice can be easier to perceive.

The Cost of Adeptship

        One important thing that you must realize on the spiritual path is that adeptship takes effort, concentration, constancy and sacrifice.   I have spent far too great a portion of my life looking for the ‘magic pill’ that would bring me spiritual enlightenment – or at least some portion of it – without doing the work.  I don’t know if that is possible for someone else but by my experience if you want to get to the top of the mountain you have to do the climbing.   Most of the labor is internal but it is no less labor intensive for all that.  In fact, it is the most difficult work you can do.  It takes a great deal of self-honesty, humility, concentration, patience, constancy and above all, love.  To get where you want to go you must change your entire paradigm.  You will have to be willing to adjust all of your ideas about what is real, about who you are, about how things work and about what is worthwhile to spend your time on.  You might not end up changing all your ideas but you have to be willing to let go of any and all that impeed your progress to the presence of God in your life.  You will even have to let go of your ideas about where you are headed and what you will see when you get there.  Do not be caught by what someone else has told you about God or heaven or Nirvana or whatever.   That is their experience.   It may be very real for them and useful for you as a map but it isn’t what God has in store for you, maps can only give you locations not the actual experience and if you hold onto their reality you stifle your own.  The map isn't the environment.  That isn’t to say you can’t learn from others or I wouldn’t be doing this blog.  But you must subject everything to the judgement of the God within you.

        Don’t be discouraged if you don’t feel that you have all those qualities I mentioned above.  That is part of the trip, becoming.   As I have heard it said: you fake it ‘til you make it.  And remember, this is a process, a path.  You are who you are at the moment and it is good enough for the moment.  Just do it.  Just start walking the path.  That is all it really takes.

To Open This Blog

        To open this blog and talk about tools and instructions as to how to progress on the spiritual path it may be best if I clarify in this blog my own beliefs, my own affiliations and my own experience as I am walking up the path to the mountain peak. I thought I belonged to that group of seekers that are referred to as ‘spiritual but not religious’, spiritually eclectic, nones, unaffiliated or my personal favorite, spiritually unaligned. Many of those who fit into this category find these terms to be misleading, biased or even offensive. I don’t. I discovered, however, that there were those who, for one reason or another, had taken it upon themselves to give specific definitions to the terms I use above and thereby to, in effect, tell me what my beliefs were and what my classification was. Much to my surprise I was slipped into a category, entered unknowingly into a 'doctrine'  – given a definition when I thought I had stepped out of that.

        But then, immediately following that, I found that those who call themselves ‘Spiritual but not Religious’, or SBNRs were told that they actually fit into even smaller, more specific, groups. That entry in Wikipedia Linda Mercadante categorizes SBNRs into five distinct categories. They are: Dissenters, Casuals, Explorers, Seekers and Immigrants. I don’t, however, fit in any of those categories and am not particularly concerned about it except as it relates to the reader’s concepts for the purposes of this blog. Therefore, whatever term you wish to apply it will probably give you at least an approximate idea of just where I stand when it comes to my personal path and yet won’t get to the core of that combination of personal orthodoxy and freedom of thought that is mine in particular.

        I am not a theologian. I don’t split hairs about which ‘great teacher’ to follow nor about the triune nature of God or any of the ‘great’ theological questions of Christianity, the divisions of Buddhism, the differing opinions of Muslim teachers, etc. I am far more concerned with actually walking the path to the God as I perceive it through my own personal experience. Mostly I suspect that all of the arguments, discussions and disagreements that have taken place throughout history are due to someone’s being vitally concerned that someone else should accept their opinion. Often this is because they honestly believe that it is important for others to accept that belief as a necessary step to achieving an important spiritual goal but I suspect that, if we were to delve seriously into the cause, it would turn out to be based upon the needs and desires of the ego rather than an entirely philanthropic urge.

        I do ask that you allow me to speak within the confines of my personal theology, since I am unable to speak outside of it, so that you can then winnow out the pieces of useful information I am able to offer.

        The saints, both east and west, that I find I admire most aren’t those who were possessed of an evangelical desire to make everyone believe as they did but rather the ones who were in danger of being persecuted by those same ones. Because of that I have developed a theology that, while any of the established religions would consider major elements of it to be heresy, I have no interest in debating. My beliefs, after all, include the idea that God doesn’t much care if I get my picture of heaven or the etheric or samsara correct. My God is far more interested in my personal relationship with Him/Her and the percent of my life that I give over to that relationship as opposed to the amount of time I spend on personal aggrandizement, ego enhancement or counter-productive entertainment. I want very much to understand how things work on the spiritual path so that I can get where I want to go with some confidence. On the other hand, I am not so interested in what others see as the environment in which those things operate.

        Let me put it another way. What is not important to me are all of those beliefs that could possibly turn out to be untrue when I arrive in God’s presence. Certainly, I have my own set of beliefs but the point is will it matter to me if there is one life or if I have been reincarnated multiple times? Will I REALLY care if I have come to a false understanding of the triune nature of God as Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva or the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost? Will I really judge someone depending on whether they use the word God, Allah or Brahma? Nope. Not as long as I am able to reach the goal. So, what does matter to me? The goal. Give me the right tools, the right map so I can get there and find out for myself what is true and what is not.

        Now I am aware that there are those who will say that I have to have the ‘right’ beliefs in order to make it and chief among them will be some Christian sects that tell me that it is only through accepting Jesus as my personal savior that I can be saved. Fortunately for me Jesus himself did not think so. He said that at the final judgement there would be those that he invited to sit at his right hand who would say that they never knew him. To them he would reply, ‘what you did to the least of my brethren, you did to me”.

        I have danced with the Sufis, chanted with the Nichiren Shoshu, spent the night on my knees in a Catholic chapel, spent time with Church Universal and Triumphant so erroneously referred to as a cult, worn a collar as a brother in the Holy Order of MANS and belonged to the Self-Realization Fellowship. I am grateful for all that I have learned and the growth that I have achieved through all of these experiences. I have read Ram Dass, Madam Blavatsky, Krishnamurti, Suzuki, (both of them), Prophet, (both of them), Thomas Merton, Bernadette Roberts, Paramhansa Yogananda and many more. Many of these are great souls who have given me powerful boosts to my understanding of my path. But through the years I have noticed that even the great teachers all have one idiosyncrasy in common. I have heard nearly all of them say in one way or another – “Yes, there are many paths to God…, but this one is the best”. And they would all be 100% correct if they added two tiny words to that statement. “There are many paths to God…, but this one is the best FOR ME”. Neither am I against any organized religion. Many of them keep churning out saints. But simply, that is not my path.

        In this blog I will strive to bring clarity to some of the issues that confront the seeker on the path. I will be communicating through the paradigm of my own beliefs. This is unavoidable. Because of that there will certainly be things I say that you won’t agree with. But if you keep that in mind you can probably sift through those beliefs, pull what you find useful both of my beliefs and, more importantly, of the tools that are the part of these entries I consider to be of value, and come away with a clearer view of your own path to the top of the mountain. I am striving to love God with all my heart, all my soul, all my mind and all my strength. That is a pivotal direction on the map to the ultimate goal. May we all meet there from whatever directions we come!

Terms and Definitions

        As I began to write selections for this blog I found that I was using terms that, while they may be familiar, I was adapting to my own definitions. Given that, I had better make clear what I mean by these terms when I use them. First off, I am calling this blog a spiritual primer because the true seeker will only consider this as a small step on the path to God, (albeit hopefully a useful one). There are very many beings that are far more advanced than I am who offer vast amounts of in depth teachings and profound insights to act as aids to the journey. But they often either assume levels of knowledge by the listener, treat all the information as Zen Koans or simply don't have the time to get into the simple explanations that would be useful.  In addition, I believe that the greatest part of learning takes place within with our own God self as the teacher so this can only be thought of as an editorial to all of that.

        ‘Adept’ is meant to refer to the reader and to all those who are travelers on a spiritual path, whichever way they may choose. It is, in a sense, a title in that it assumes some already existent level of spiritual momentum. But this seems fair to me because to have an interest in the spiritual path implies at least a basic level of momentum upwards, of adeptship. I believe that once a person’s interest in the spiritual journey becomes conscious they must necessarily have been on the path unconsciously for some time so they must have some momentum, however small it may appear to be to themselves. Further, the other words that I considered all carry a subtle connotation of following a doctrine of some kind and I am trying to get away from that. I find it convenient, therefore, to use the term "adept' rather than student, chela, disciple, etc. It is simply a convention I have assumed.

        When I use the term ‘doctrine’ I am referring to a given organization’s list of "required" beliefs. One example, (but hardly the only one), is the Catholic Apostle’s Creed. These are the beliefs that are necessary for admission and continual membership because the whole of a given religion’s theology is based on them. If you don’t believe then by definition you aren’t one of them. If you don’t accept them then you don’t accept the religion and won’t be, won’t want to be, a member. It isn’t necessary for the hierarchy of a given church to cast you out. Your lack of acceptance will automatically distance you internally. In the context of this blog ‘paradigm’ applies to our personal beliefs and assumptions about the macrocosm and microcosm at all levels of experience: personal, social, religious, etc. So, rather than ‘kicking in’ just when we are in our ‘spiritual’ mode of thought, it is constantly involved with who we are and how we perceive the world at every minute. We each have a paradigm, a set of assumptions that exist at the core of our beliefs as to how the world functions, our relationship with the world as we perceive it. Doctrines change from denomination to denomination, from sect to sect, from religion to religion, from person to person. In fact, it is insistence on the uncompromising nature of many religious doctrines that separates believers of different religions. Paradigms are always entirely personal. While a personal paradigm involves a personal doctrine, (an atheist, too, has a doctrine), it goes far beyond that to what are the very basic assumptions we make about the world. Decisions you make in your life: i.e. what book to read, what movie to watch, aren’t part of you paradigm but the reasons for making those decisions, the assumptions that lie behind those choices, are. Paradigms involve what we consider to be worthwhile and why we consider it to be so. On an even deeper level it involves what we even allow ourselves to perceive, how we perceive and, finally, why we perceive any given item at any given time.

        What doesn’t change from one person to another is the process of walking the path so the tools for getting from here to there don’t vary much regardless of which trail we take up the mountain. What we may believe is ‘there’ and our motivation for getting ‘there’ may change from group to group but the process of going from point A to point B is remarkably similar, especially among the mystics of the variety of religions available. Point A is wherever you are at the moment and point B is, by definition, located at the ‘top’ of the mountain. There are religions where the path is a process of growth to be experienced. Your salvation depends on a process of development over an indeterminant period of time. There are numerous religions where there are, rather, guidelines or set of laws to follow. Your salvation then depends on how well you conform to those laws.  (With time and experience I have found that there are usually those in any given religion who have transcended the law and developed a personal relationship with God. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.)  There are also religions where the goal is a transformation of both intent and focus which often takes place in a moment of clarity or realization that is the necessary ingredient to salvation and once you have changed your life’s focus you can be fairly certain you are saved.  (That doesn't mean that the work is over but that the work is able to begin on a whole new level of awareness.)  There are religions where all three paths are accepted by different sects. In fact, that seems to me to be the rule rather than the exception. There is a strong tradition of mysticism and of orthodoxy in most religions and most have multiple sects that each accept one or the other of the three approaches to salvation. There is one trait that both doctrine and paradigm share. They are both sets of beliefs. If you have a doctrine offered to you by an organization, an outline regarding how things are in the universe that pertain to God and the spiritual world that you have not directly experienced, (and often even if you have), then it is made up of a series of beliefs. This is especially true if you have accepted the tenants of a religion or spiritual group without direct experience of them. They are beliefs. They are not ‘knowings’.  I don't have an issue with beliefs.  I have plenty of them.  I am simply trying to bring clarity to your understanding of that portion of MY paradigm so that you can get the most from it.

        The tips that I offer in this book are not ‘knowings’ either. You cannot get ‘knowings’ from others. If you get a concept of how things are from a source other than your own experience then it will be paradigm that is subject to change. If it is a paradigm that pertains to your spiritual life it will often be doctrine. This is especially true if belief in a given set of concepts is a requirement for membership in an organized religion. They are tools or perspectives that may serve you or may not. But what is true about the universe, what is universal, you have to have either brought with you or you need to come to within yourself. In fact, what you bring with you may be the very reason you are searching in the first place. I do not have a problem with doctrine, per se. If you are engaged upon a path of spiritual devotion you will have a doctrine, a set of beliefs that are the framework for your endeavor. I certainly do. That is seemingly unavoidable. It would be very difficult to travel the spiritual path without an environment or a goal for that process to achieve. The problems come when either the doctrine becomes confining rather than uplifting or when it conflicts with our own inner voice. When we begin to make the doctrine more important than our own experience, our own personal growth or closeness to God then it becomes a hinderance rather than a help. And when we cling to a doctrine in spite of our own inner voice telling us that it doesn’t ring true then it can be the wedge that drives into our relationship with God and separates us from Him.

        Doctrine can come in many forms. What I mean is that we tend to think of doctrine as the stated belief of a given religion or sect and that is certainly true at one level. But what about the unconscious assumptions we make, our personal doctrines, that limit our perspective? Once in conversation with my wife I happened to mention a particular teacher who I said had a great deal to offer, (although I thought that his communication was sometimes so intellectual as to be obscure). My wife said something to the effect that that person’s teachings were wrong or misguided or misleading or some such. But I knew that she hadn’t ever looked into what he had to say. I asked her how she had come to that conclusion and she was not sure. She said that this person said that that ‘teacher’ had said so. I told her that I suspected that she was being a victim of a peripheral paradigm – that kind of paradigm that isn’t a major tenant of a religion but is still an accepted belief because some teacher said so. I didn’t recommend that she read him herself because he can be dry and intellectual but I did suggest that she not make any assumptions based on second hand hearsay.

        Let me give you an example of my own that is even more subtle although still related to the spiritual path. I purchased a copy of “The Tibetan Book of the Dead” at one point and sometime later I sat down to explore it. The Dalai Lama wrote the Introduction to this particular translation and in it he discussed differing ideas about the afterlife that particular sects of Buddhism have, even as to whether or not it exists. I nearly stopped reading the book right there because I didn’t agree with the idea that there was no afterlife.  My paradigm conflicted with that one.  The “Tibetan Book of the Dead” obviously speaks of an afterlife. The Dalai Lama wasn’t saying whether or not HE believed in any kind of afterlife. In fact, he wasn’t speaking about his own thoughts about afterlife at all nor about the text’s views on the subject. He was simply explaining for the sake of clarity that there are many different ideas about the afterlife among sects of Buddhism who all found "The Book of the Dead" useful. Yet I was so closed off at the time that I nearly put down the book and ceased to read it because I was sure that if there were those who held that this book had value who, themselves, didn’t believe in an afterlife, then my thoughts were so different from theirs that I had nothing to learn from the book at all. What amazing arrogance on my part! Yet we all do that all the time in greater or lesser ways. It is one of the most common themes down through history. Sometimes it can be very subtle. If all of that can be said about doctrine then how much more can it apply to our personal paradigms. This is a subject that takes far more consideration. I may take that up later in the blog.

        What I hope to accomplish is to give you, the reader, the tools to at least begin the journey on your own, even if you do feel called to follow one or another of the religious groups that abound as you begin your journey or once you have traveled for a time on your path. There is a difference between the doctrine of the path you may choose, i.e. what I think of as the environment in which you choose to travel, and the ‘how to’ instructions, the nuts and bolts on how to get further down that path regardless of the doctrine you travel with when you do it. I call these nuts and bolts instructions ‘tools’. What I have found to be a most important part of my growth on the path is the ability to set my own beliefs aside when I am confronted with an environment that has the potential for spiritual growth. That doesn’t necessarily mean that I can’t keep those beliefs but it does mean that I am ready to accept what a given teaching has to offer without first making it pass through the filter of what I am willing to accept. As I hope is obvious belief and knowing are two different states.

        If you want to grow in and on your journey to God you absolutely need to let go of your preconceptions about God and the universe. You must approach your path as a little child. When Jesus speaks of becoming as little children he means not only to be as sweet and guileless as a child. I believe that he also means to be as open to new ideas, to not assume that we already know when we are being told something. As Suzuki says you must have a beginner’s mind always when you are dealing with ‘God stuff’. This doesn’t even mean that your beliefs and ideas are wrong. It means that by holding on to them tightly at the expense of widening your spiritual horizons you may be limiting the scope of those horizons and partially blocking your vision of God.  You may be making your preconceptions your God.  More on this later.

        I had a teacher on the path once who told me that the most difficult thing about teaching is getting the adept to realize you are telling them something they don’t already know because we all tend to take information and distort it into shapes that fit into the contours of the paradigm we already have. I will be using the term “mask”. I use this term to encompass the entirety of one's outer personality. This is all of who you see yourself as consciously.  This is the image of you that you often present to the world.  It is also the image of yourself that you often think of as who you are.  I will use this term to cover personality, ego, etc. It is that outer you that covers, speaks for and acts as a defense for the inner child which I consider to be the soul. This mask is not, in my opinion, who you are. This is a false front. I am not going to get into this further at this point or I will get off on a tangent that, being premature, would be non-productive. Just know that all that you see as your personality, the ego construct – that is what I refer to as the mask.

        Finally, the rare times that I will use pronouns at all I will use the feminine in this book. This is done for three reasons. I consider the soul to be feminine and I am generally trying to speak directly to the soul in each of us. If you find it distracting simply regard it as either a further tool that I am conveying but that I am, for once, doing it more subtly of that you are witness to a manifestation of my own personal paradigm in action. I am, in addition, a follower of the Divine Mother so I have an affinity for the feminine. I honor the feminine in all of creation and this is just one more way in which I can show my regard for her. And the third reason: I wanted to go against the accepted practice of deciding to use the masculine for the sake of ‘ease of use’. In that context I simply chose the feminine as one of two equal choices – ‘for ease of use’.  It doesn't seem to come up all that often.