Cursed Mountain Look: Religion Is Scary

Before my first look at Deep Silver Vienna's Cursed Mountain, I always thought of Buddhism as an optimistic celebrity religion where you didn't go to Hell. Now I think it's the second-scariest religion ever.

That's not to say that developer Deep Silver has misrepresented Buddhism as an angry, savage religion that turns unwary mountaineers into zombies. The creative team went way out of their way to research the Tibetan roots of the Buddhist religion and portray some its harsh truths as means for driving the plot of their game.

In Cursed Mountain, you play a Scottish mountaineer out to rescue his younger brother from the peak of a treacherous Himalayan mountain called Chomolonzo somewhere in Tibet. The game is set in the 1980s (to preclude problem-solving technology like GPS trackers and stuff), but the ancient religious traditions of the monasteries and villages that dot the mountain are preserved. So our hero, Eric Simmons, finds himself grappling with Buddhist lore and Tibetan rituals to free the trapped souls of ghosts and appease the angry, cursed mountain.

For my first look at the game, I witnessed a boss fight from later in the game that Deep Silver developer relations manager Martin Filipp was demoing for a couple of other games journalists. I had no idea what was going on in the story, but I saw Eric round a narrow, snowy pass high up on the mountain and come upon the ruins what looked like a temple. In front of the temple, on a flat patch of permafrost, there were three bird-shaped statues that Eric could choose to investigate by pressing A. Doing so activated the statues so that they gave off orange electricity and suddenly a giant, winged black shadow swooped down from the mountain to attack Eric.

Combat in Cursed Mountain is one part melee, one part waggle-fest. I think of it as "Buddhist Flailing" and it works like this: Eric will melee-attack ghosts and bosses with his pick-axe and then use special Buddhist artifacts to perform a ritual on them. First, you must melee ghosts enough times to get a glowing red emblem to appear on their bodies. Pointing at the emblem and clicking A triggers a set of motion control instructions to appear onscreen, telling the player to do things like brandish the Wii Remote or swing the Nunchuck diagonally. Filipp says this is the ritual needed to release the ghost. If you don't perform each action in the ritual correctly, the ritual fails and you have to start over. If you get it right, though, you get a small amount of health back—in addition to not having an angry ghost to deal with anymore.

While battling the winged thingy, Filipp explained that though the game relies on Buddhism to construct the plot -– like why the mountain is cursed and why all these ghosts of dead mountaineers keep attacking Eric -– the developer made their own enemies and strove to be respectful of the religion. So don't expect a throw down with Buddha or the Dalai Lama or anything.

However, do expect to see some pretty alarming things you didn't know about Buddhism from listening to actor Richard Gere rave about it. For example, there's the Bardo state of Buddhism where souls are held before going on to Nirvana or reincarnation. Eric is able to trigger a "Bardo" vision where he can attack ghosts and see hidden things like doors or clues. In this view, the icy white paths of Chomolonzo look gray and black particles move across the screen like snow flurries. It might not be what Buddhists had in mind when describing Bardo in their religious texts, but unless you're prepared to die and go there to find out, just accept the developer's interpretation.

Next up, there the Tibetan ritual of "sky burial." I had never heard of this before, but the developer stumbled across it in their research for the project and decided to include it in the game at a crucial point. At the risk of spoilers, I won't get into details -– but let's just say, the nature of it suits the creepy, alarming atmosphere of Cursed Mountain very well.

Finally, there's another ritual of appeasing the mountain. In Buddhism, Filipp explained, mountains are seen as living gods and to keep said gods from, say, falling on you, a potential climber has to make some sort of sacrifice to make them happy. In real life, I've heard of people offering money to a shrine or lighting incense, but in the game, things get a little more… physical. Again, no spoilers, but let me just say that Cursed Mountain is rated M for good reason. Sexy good reason.

Filipp wrapped up with the other two games journalists and gave me a quick rundown of a few other levels. Cursed Mountain is a linear game spanning 13 levels, but it's kind of neat how you can see the whole world of the game –- the mountain -– for pretty much every level. Unlike other survival horror games that rely on claustrophobic indoor settings, this game creates a sense of oppressive agoraphobia where you feel like the mountain is bearing down on you all the time and the ground beneath you opens up to a yawning sky-filled oblivion. There was one level I saw that took place in an ice crevice and by comparison, it seemed a lot less scary than the open-air levels.

Speaking from the experience of climbing Mount Fuji, I say the mental strain created by the Cursed Mountain's setting definitely felt like the real thing. You walk and you climb and you walk, but the peak always seems impossibly far away – and so does the safety of the ground below you. Add ghosts and an angry goddess to that and it's no wonder Eric has to keep muttering to himself throughout the game to stay sane.

One final point Filipp made before ending our appointment was that Cursed Mountain is physically unlike any other horror game out there. In other console horror games -– if they're really good and immersive -– you hunch over instinctively to protect yourself as the game gets scarier and scarier. Cursed Mountain forces you away from that with its motion controls and Filipp says this adds to the fear factor.

I guess I'll find that out for myself soon enough. Deep Silver was kind enough to send me home with a preview build of Cursed Mountain. I plan on cracking it open in a dark room with a Hello Kitty plushie next to me to stave off heebie-jeebies.

By AJ Glasser

More scriptural passages to live by

Folks sometimes ask me, “What are your favorite scriptural passages?” In a recent column I answered with Jewish, Christian and Muslim texts. Today we’ll look at three Asian treasures.

•“When men lack a sense of awe, there will be disaster” begins Chapter 72 of the Tao Te Ching in the Gia-Fu Feng/Jane English version of this ancient Taoist classic.

Some translations use the word “fear” instead of “awe,” but in either case the warning means that unless we are aware of what counts, we are in danger.

Our desacralized culture can easily distract us. There is nothing wrong with talking on a cell phone, but not while driving; you better pay attention to the road.

An economy leveraged by those more focused on their pay than on working for the common good leads to widespread hurt and failure.

More generally, when our preoccupation with the partial overwhelms feeling the whole miracle of existence, the impulse weakens to share what we have with others, and we may do crazy things.

But with awe we can see that the universe is, in William Blake’s words, “infinite and holy.”

•The Heart Sutra may be the most commonly chanted Buddhist text. In English, it is less than 300 words long.

Halfway through is the astonishing claim that there is “no truth of suffering, of the cause of suffering, of the cessation of suffering nor of the path” — in effect denying the Four Noble Truths that the Buddha himself taught.

So here is a Buddhist text that seems to undermine the very foundation of Buddhism. I know of no parallel text in any other religion.

But Buddhism, at least in theory, is based on undermining itself. It is an ancient post-modernism, calling into question any description of reality, including its own, because humans crave descriptions of reality more than reality itself.

•The Hindu Bhagavad-Gita 2:47 teaches us to “act without attachment to the result,” advising us that our minds become polluted when we desire an end more than simply doing what is right.

Inaction is not an option. But only with a clear head can we discern our responsibility and act on it, as if it were a sacrament.

We cannot be sure of the ultimate result, only of the integrity of our act. The outcome is in God’s hands.

These scriptural passages urge me to pay attention to what counts, to regard any human system of thought or picture of reality with caution, and to do the right thing without worrying about the consequence.

By Vern Barnet

Wanted: Freedom from religion

The theocratic repression in Iran is a reminder that there can be no freedom without secular government

June 23, 2009 | In the summer of 1968, as Soviet tanks rolled into communist Czechoslovakia to end the brief period of liberalization known as the "Prague Spring," W.H. Auden composed a poem titled "August 1968":

The Ogre does what ogres can,
Deeds quite impossible for Man,
But one prize is beyond his reach,
The Ogre cannot master Speech:
About a subjugated plain,
Among its desperate and slain,
The Ogre stalks with hands on hips,
While drivel gushes from his lips.

Watching the scenes of bravery and brutality that are being played out in Iran brings Auden's poem to mind. Another line comes to mind as well: the observation by W.E.B. DuBois in 1903 that "the problem of the 20th century is the problem of the color-line." Racism has not been extinguished, but it has been corralled, by the now-universal principle of the separation of race and state. The demise of political racism leaves political religion standing as the most widespread form of tyranny in the world. The problem of the 21st century is the problem of the creedal line. If the problem is solved, it will be solved by universalizing the principle of the separation of religion and state.

Secular government is the basis of both liberty and democracy. It is important to emphasize this, because of the tendency to portray the struggle in Iran in terms of a global conflict between democracy and dictatorship. Set aside, for a moment, the fact that former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi was one of four candidates, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who were approved to run as presidential candidates last May by the clerics of Iran's Guardian Council. It does not take away from the heroism of Mousavi or his followers to point out that if Ahmadinejad stole the election he stole an election that was already rigged.

The larger issue is the question of what comes first: separation of church and state, or democracy. America's Founders had no doubts on that score. Democracy requires citizens who are free from "superstition" and "priestcraft," to use 18th-century language. Americans have usually believed that religion can play a constructive role in a democratic republic by encouraging moral behavior. But in the traditional American view, theocratic democracy is nothing more than majoritarian tyranny, whether the clerics have a formal role in the state or merely tell the voters how to vote. And even secular democracy is not a goal in itself. It is merely a means to an end: the protection of natural rights.

The idea of universal, basic natural human rights is incompatible with theocracy in any form. While Christians and adherents of other religions can believe in natural rights, the theory of natural rights itself, influenced by ancient Greek sophists and Epicureans, is inherently secular. Natural rights by definition are those that ordinary people, using only their reason, can agree upon -- things like life and liberty and property or happiness, meaning access to subsistence. The list of natural rights varies from thinker to thinker, but they all have one thing in common -- they are not revealed by a divine intelligence to a prophet or priests.

The natural rights tradition is radical in another way. Authority flows upward from the individual to the government, not downward from God to the individual via the government. The government is not God's viceroy on earth. It is nothing more than a territorial mutual protection society. In natural rights theory -- though needless to say not always in the practice of liberal regimes -- the governors are the employees and agents of the governed.

Combine the two ideas of natural rights -- the governed as the bosses of the governors, the rights of the governed identifiable by reason -- and you get a conception of government as something that is limited in its purposes, if not necessarily its means. In the words of Thomas Jefferson in his "Notes on Virginia": "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

A government, in short, is a limited-purpose, secular, worldly agency, not a divine institution. It is more like a property-owners association than like a church. There would be no point in a property-owners association that sought to do its limited, straightforward business according to the precepts of Catholic natural law, or Baptist theology, or Orthodox Judaism. Likewise, from the natural rights liberal perspective the very idea of a Christian state or an Islamic republic seems absurd, like a Buddhist municipal water utility district.

But what if 100 percent of the people in a water-utility district are Buddhist and want the district's charter to promote Buddhism? It doesn't matter what they want. Promoting Buddhism is beyond the legitimate scope of the activities of a water utility district. Buddhist monks are free to promote Buddhism privately, but the water-utility engineers should stick to keeping the water clean and safe for everyone, Buddhist and non-Buddhist alike.

Replacing a Muslim monarch like the shah of Iran with an "Islamic republic" is merely replacing a more autocratic with a more populist form of theocratic tyranny. Liberal democracy is sometimes defined as "majority rule with minority rights," but that is misleading. If a religious majority rules, not on the basis of secular reason, using arguments that can convince nonbelievers as well as believers, but on the basis of supernatural dogma, then you simply have a form of religious tyranny with a multitude of small religious tyrants.

Jefferson wrote in his original preamble to Virginia's historic statue establishing religious freedom:

"SECTION III. And though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right."

Secular government, even in a country with a religious majority, is therefore the indispensable basis of genuine democracy, if the purpose of democracy is to allow a group of people to achieve their common, limited, this-worldly goals while securing their natural rights. To be sure, this understanding of democracy as subordinate to natural rights is disputed by many thinkers in the West and the world. Often democracy and self-determination are treated as though they were ends in themselves, rather than as means to realize the basic natural rights of individuals.

But if you sever democracy from the idea of universal, human rights discernible by secular reason, with no need for assistance from divine revelation, you run the risk of sanctioning majoritarian tyranny by means of free and fair elections. You then have no grounds for objecting, if reactionary Christians in a Christian majority country vote in biblical law, or if a majority of Muslim voters vote in sharia law. Majority rule did not justify racism in the American South. It cannot justify "religionism" anywhere.

Is it "cultural imperialism" to insist that natural rights be the basis of limited and secular government? That cultural-relativist argument can hardly be made by theocrats, who claim that the legitimacy of governments depends on their conformity to the will of God, as interpreted by their scriptures and their clerics. Pakistan's Ministry of Religious Affairs takes its motto from a Quranic verse: "Islam is the only religion acceptable to God." Those who hold this view cannot argue that their version of government is the only divinely sanctioned one and then defend it by claiming to be defending their local traditions and customs, as though their would-be universal religion were just a local style of costume or cuisine. Religious tyranny today predominantly is found in Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. But that does not make critics of religious tyranny "anti-Muslim," any more than the fact that white supremacy was found, obviously, in white nations and white-ruled empires made criticism of racism "anti-white."

If I am right, then enlightened people around the world should oppose official religion just as they opposed racial apartheid. In the aftermath of European colonialism, cultural relativists have mocked distinctions between "civilization" and "barbarism." But if it was barbarous for South Africa to be a Nazi-like white supremacist state, why is it not barbarous for Saudi Arabia to ban the public practice of other religions by its citizens? If constitutions declaring Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan to be "Islamic republics" are not relics of a more primitive stage of human civilization, then what is? Fear of hurting the feelings of Muslim theocrats should not deter our disapproval any more than fear of insulting Afrikaaners did during the campaign against South African apartheid.

None of this means that the U.S. government or other governments should try to reform religious tyrannies, including "democratic" Islamic republics, from the outside. In the aftermath of George W. Bush's crusade in the name of democracy, we do not need a foreign policy crusade in the name of secularism. President Obama's caution during the Iranian upheaval has been appropriately statesmanlike. Nor would it be wise to recommend ostracizing the inhabitants of clerical states. Treating white South Africans as pariahs helped to accelerate the demise of apartheid, but in the case of some of today's semi-liberal and semi-democratic Islamic republics, engagement of their populations and leaders with the wider world may have better effects.

The one thing that we in liberal countries can do, while reformers in Iran fight and sometimes die for their principles, is to understand our own. And the most fundamental principle of all is that ordinary human beings are capable of governing themselves without the guidance of other ordinary human beings who pretend to speak on behalf of God.

By Michael Lind

The influence of St. Isaac and his significance for today

Already in his lifetime Isaac was respected and venerated as a spiritual teacher. After his death his glory increased as his writings spread. Joseph Hazzaya, who lived in the eighth century, called him ‘famous among the saints’. Another Syrian writer calls him ‘the master and teacher of all monks and the haven of salvation for the whole world’.

By the eleventh century, due to the Greek translation of his writings, Isaac became widely known in the Greek-speaking East: in the famous anthology of ascetical texts, the Evergetinon, the passages from ‘abba Isaac the Syrian’ stand on the same footing as those from the classics of early Byzantine spirituality. This is how a modest ‘Nestorian’ Bishop from a remote province of Persia became a Holy Father of the Orthodox Church of Chalcedonian orientation - a rather exceptional phenomenon in the history of Eastern Christianity.

St Isaac has exerted a considerable influence on Russian spirituality. His ascetical homilies, translated into Slavonic in the XIVth century, made a deep impression on St Nil of Sora, one of the most important monastic writers of the XVIth century. In the XIXth century major theologians, such as Philaret of Moscow and Theophane the Recluse, as well as famous secular writers, such as I.Kireyevsky and F.Dostoyevsky, were among his admirers. Dostoyevsky was deeply influenced by Isaac’s homilies and used some of them as a source material for ‘the writings of Elder Zosima’ in ‘The Brothers Karamazoff’.

The word of St Isaac has crossed not only the boundaries of time, but also confessional barriers. As early as in the ninth century, he was read by the Byzantine and Syrian Orthodox, as well as the Church of the East, each group having provided its own recension of his writings. In the fifteenth century Isaac breaks into the Catholic world, being at the same time one of the most popular ascetical writers of the Eastern Orthodox Church. In our time his writings draw the attention of Christians who belong to different denominations and follow different traditions, but share a common faith in Jesus and the ultimate quest for salvation. I remember how during one scholarly conference, where I delivered a paper on the practice of prayer in St Isaac, three people came to me, one after another: a Cistercian nun, a protestant layman, and a Buddhist monk. All three were wondering at how much Isaac’s teaching of prayer, which I expounded, is in line with their own traditions. Then a Franciscan friar came to inform me of the existence of St Isaac of Nineveh’s retreat house in New Zealand: the house is run by both Catholics and Anglicans.

One of the secrets of this ecumenical reception of Isaac lies in his own universal vision: his writings, which were initially addressed to a very narrow circle of his contemporary monastics, have proved to be aproppriate for so many people in different epochs even down to our time. Every Christian who now reads Isaac can find something appropriate for himself, in spite of the fact that the entire context of Isaac’s life was so strikingly different from our own.

Another secret of Isaac’s wide reception lies in the fact that he is always speaking of God’s love, which has no boundaries, which is beyond any concept of justice or requital, which was crucified for the salvation of the whole world and which leads all created beings to salvation. In every epoch, the Christian world needs to be reminded of this universal love of God for His creation because in every epoch there is a strong tendency within Christianity to replace the religion of love and freedom that was brought about by Jesus with the religion of slavery and fear. Isaac reminds us that it is not out of fear of punishment or out of hope of future reward that we are to keep God’s commandments, but out of our love for God. Our vocation is not to be slaves, but to attain to the freedom of the sons of God and to become ‘a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation.

Catholic Charismatic Renewal: Dossier

Catholic Charismatic Renewal, which originated in a charismatic event in the USA in 1967, has branches all over the world, including England, Wales and Scotland. Recently the English branch announced that, due to financial difficulties, they would be closing their office at the All Saints Pastoral Centre at London Colney (a facility owned by the Archdiocese of Westminster), and probably ceasing to publish their magazine 'GoodNews' and teaching resources. The Tablet reported (16th May 09)
In the 1980s and early 1990s the popularity of the Charismatic Renewal – the spirituality of which is centred on an encounter with the Holy Spirit – was at its peak, with conferences attracting up to 5,000 people. In recent years numbers have decreased...
A recent conference attracted 1,500.

A picture is worth a thousand words. The picture above tells us a lot about their spirituality and liturgical preferences, and the kind of people who front the organisation: in a phrase, aging trendies. This is clearly an organisation undergoing accelerating decline, but its power to harm the Church has not left it yet.

What it is

CCR is a somewhat nebulous phenomenon. It promotes prayer groups and liturgies of a particular style, and in general a theological attitude of a particular type, through a magazine, education packs, and national and local events. It promotes many good things, but mixes them in with bad or at least dubious or unproven ones. The English website includes Medjugorje among its links to officially approved Marian shrines (Medjugorje is not officially approved); it links to many pro-life groups but also to Amnesty International, which campaigns openly for the legalisation of abortion; it includes official agencies of the Catholic Bishops and non-Catholic 'healing ministries', Christian Zionists, and all sorts of weird and wonderful groups, as well as the usual aging trendy stuff, such as CAFOD and livesimply.

The fundamental problem with CCR is one of style or attitude rather than one of substance. That is not because the substance is good - it is because, like the liberal charismatic Protestantism on which it models itself, there is no substance. While not explicitly denying any doctrines, it inculcates an attitude and a spirituality which is at odds with Catholic tradition and, ultimately, at odds with Catholic doctrine.

How can we pin down the problems?

Identification with Protestantism

It is obvious that CCR is inspired by a certain kind of Protestantism. The inspiration is not simply a matter of learning from non-Catholics in matters of technique - the CCR actually sees itself as part of a 'Pentecostal/Charismatic' phenomenon.

One author in the latest magazine puts it this way:

The outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Azusa Street, Los Angeles, in 1906, saw the beginning of Pentecostalism. This was followed in the 1960s by the Charismatic Renewal in the mainline Christian denominations, alongside the birth of the Independent Charismatic House Churches. This Pentecostal/Charismatic Movement has grown from a handful of individuals in 1906 to a global force of more than 600 million people today. Such a remarkable number means that Christians who have been baptised in the Holy Spirit today represent about one third of global Christianity, and are the fastest growing part of the world-wide church. Whilst there are signs of a slow-down in Western Europe and North America, the rate of growth continues unabated in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. History tells us that renewal movements usually rise and fall, but are we experiencing something different? The time seems to be right for a new look at this amazing Pentecostal/Charismatic Movement.

It would seem useless to say to the author, Charles Whitehead (Chairman of CCR), that Pentecostalism is a group of truly appalling sects, which use the most unscrupulous means to proselytise the least educated Catholic populations they can find, to give them a religion evacuated of even the limited understanding of the Sacraments you would find in Anglicanism. In this article Whitehead identifies more with the second 'C' in CCR than with the first.

He also suggests - as his Pentecostal friends would insist - that sacramntal baptism is not true 'baptism in the Spirit'. This is a foundational belief for charismatics, and it betrays the seriousness of the problem. Our Lord explained that 'Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit' (John 3.5-6) and he instituted the sacrament of Baptism to make this possible. Baptism - note Our Lord's reference to water - objectively gives the Holy Spirit to the baptised. It is not a matter of emotion, but metaphysical fact. To say that this is not baptism of the Spirit Our Lord intended is an attack on the Church's whole sacramental system, and a replacement of the sacraments' objective signs with nothing but feelings.

The general emphasis on the experience of the Spirit creates the problem that if Church authorities - parish priests or bishops - impose any limits on what charismatic groups get up to (especially in the liturgy), Catholic charismatics have a tendency simply to leave the Church and join up with charismatics of other denominations. Protestant charismatic and Pentecostal churches in the United States have huge numbers of Catholic converts in them, and this phenomenon has, in a more limited way, been seen in the UK as well.

Liturgical abuses

It hardly needs to be said that typical 'charismatic' Masses and devotions depart from the norms laid down by the Church. The invasion of the sanctuary by lay people, musicians, people being slain in the spirit, people giving personal testimonies etc. is one obvious example; another would be the constant interuption or replacement of the liturgical texts by spontaneous or scripted additions. Charismatics would find it hard to see what the problem is here, but what they are doing contravenes the law of the Church, and their attitude is completely at odds with the Church's attitude towards the liturgy. If it were meant to be a free-for-all we wouldn't have the liturgical laws we have.

For a lengthy treatment of Catholic charismatic liturgies at a conference in the USA, see John Vennari here.

A preference for style over substance

Pentecostalism can be seen as the taking of certain Protestant themes to a logical extreme: a rejection of ritual and formalism (including vestments, the sacraments, even the baptismal formula), and a rejection of intellectualism (including any properly articulated theology). Instead Pentecostal groups rely entirely on a personal connection with the Holy Spirit. Followers think they can tell that the Spirit is with a particular leader because he says so, and tries to demonstrate it in various ways. Preaching is one; others include making odd noises when praying ('speaking in tongues'), claiming miraculous healing powers, and having the ability to mesmerise an audience. Confidence tricksters and stage hypnotists can, of course, do similar things.

The resulting sect is made up of an inner core of people who may feel important because of their role or may be benefitting financially from the sect, and an outer group which often has a high turn-over as people become discouraged, when the extravagant claims of the preacher fail to solve their personal problems, or see through the sham, or hear an even more mesmerising preacher working down the road. These kinds of groups often attract many young people, especially the intellectually unsophisticated, but these young people tend not to become older devotees - as they age they drift away.

CCR is not, of course, guilty of the worst excesses of the Pentecostal movement, and working within the Church the Church's sacramental and intellectual resources remain, at least theoretically, available. But insofar as they claim to be inspired by the Pentecostal/Charismatic tendency in Protestantism, they are travelling down that same road. This places a personal feeling of being 'touched by the Spirit' above any objective sacramental event, and shunts difficult theological questions aside. While claiming that God will solve your problems, and that God can be found where His Spirit can be seen visibly working, they set people up for an exaggerated enthusiasm to be followed by disappointment. This is a road out of the Church for many people.

Style can get you noticed, but substance gives staying power. When Catholics formed by CCR are confronted with real personal difficulties, or real theological objections to Catholicism or belief in God, they are extremely vulnerable.

Presumption

The fundamental claim of the charismatic movement is that they 'have' the Spirit, and people should take notice of them for that reason. It follows that they can't afford to be shy about claiming to be inspired, either personally - having messages from God and so forth - or as a group - experiencing group phenomena such as being 'slain in the spirit', 'speaking in tongues' and so on. After all, if they didn't, no one would have any reason to pay attention to them.

So we find a way of talking which completely lacks the caution and discretion which characterises the Catholic tradition, and in particular Catholic spiritual masters. We read, for example,

The Burning Bush Initiative, grew out of a prophetic inspiration given to Kim Kollins, a leader in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, when she was attending a gathering over a decade ago in Rome. Her experience brought an unplanned extended stay during the next months where she was led by God to remain in Rome and intercede for the Renewal and for the world. Over this time, she felt God tell her to encourage those in the Charismatic Renewal to return to intercessory prayer for a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

There is nothing wrong in having an idea, after prayer and reflection, and feeling that perhaps this is providential. This is clearly what happened to Kim Kollins. But by expressing it as it is in this passage, it leaves no room for the thing to be a mistake. Not only are they setting people up for a huge disappointment, when (as is overwhelmingly likely) nothing much comes of it, but in the meantime anyone who has a different idea is implicitly condemned as opposing God's revealed will.

But it gets worse. Fr Pat Collins writes in an earlier edition of GoodNews of a particular prophecy made by a one charismatic leader as though it were a fifth gospel. He explains his approach in deciding which of the spontaneous and mutually contradictory babblings to believe:
Over the years I have heard many prophecies. It is notoriously hard to know whether they come from God or not. However, there are some which have considerable authority because of the circumstances in which they were spoken, the acknowledged giftedness of the people who spoke them, and the way in which they evoked an answering amen of approval in the Christian community. On Pentecost Monday 1975 such a prophecy was given by Ralph Martin in St Peter’s Basilica, Rome, in the presence of Pope Paul VI.

The Church has a very long experience in dealing with alleged prophecies. Are these the criteria used by the Church? No. Has this been assessed and approved by the proper authorities? No. But never mind - Fr Collins believes it because he thinks Ralph Martin has the Spirit, and they supply a theme for the entire issue of Goodnews.

The tradition calls this 'presumption'. The Church has always exercised great caution with regard to private revelations; even the most carefully investigated are said merely to be 'worthy of belief'; Catholics are never required to accept them. We like to think the founders of religious orders were prompted by God act as they did, but it would be absurd to try to argue that an order should be fostered because it is God's will - rather, we see evidence of God's will in the fruits the order brings forth. CCR, by contrast, constantly tells its followers that this initiative or that has been willed by God, and should be supported for that reason. Unfortunatly, we only have their word for it.

A dismissal of tradition

Rather by silence than by objections, CCR dismisses the Church's traditions: liturgical, spiritual, intellectual, cultural. They have no importance for CCR - what is important is what the Holy Spirit has told them since breakfast.

CCR has become adept at selecting quotations from Popes and the tradition which appear to support their case. This is not difficult because all the fathers and doctors of the Church were deeply concerned with spirituality and the Spirit. What is evident, however, is that all of them would be absolutely horrified if they saw and heard what goes on in charismatic services. It is totally alien to their entire conception of the role of the Spirit in the Christian life.

The Catholic Church was not invented yesterday. When we say she was founded by Our Lord we mean really founded, as a historical fact, by the man Jesus, and not simply 'inspired' by Him. That is why the Church's tradition is so important: it is a continuous and living link to Our Lord. The Church's traditions convey to the present day the will of God and the understanding of that will by the Apostles and subsequent generations. It is through her traditions and enormous historical resources that the Church can be truly renewed: this is the course set for the Church by all her great leaders, and particularly by Pope Benedict XVI.

This means nothing the the CCR. As Our Lord said, 'Who does not gather with me, scatters.' (Mat 12.30)

The verdict of recent Popes

Charismatics love to claim that Paul VI and John-Paul II gave them a complete endorsement. The Wikipedia article on the (international) Catholic Charismatic Renewal is one-sided and very favourable to them, and makes this point at length. The truth is rather different. Here is the summary of Papal teaching given in a superb analysis of the movement published in Christian Order in 2000:

Pope Paul VI on Sept. 3rd 1969 at Castelgandolfo referred to phenomena which

"not only offend canon law but also the very heart of Catholic worship, since we find them, dispensing with the institutional structures of the authentic, real and human Church, in the false hope of setting up a free and purely Charismatic Christianity, but which is -really amorphous, evanescent and blown about by any passing wind of passion or fashion. " On Sept. 24th 1969: "Many who talk about the Church today say they are inspired by a prophetic spirit. They make risky and sometimes inadmissible assertions, and appeal to the Holy Spirit as if the Divine Paraclete were at their service at all times; they sometimes do this, unfortunately, with an unspoken intention of freeing themselves from the Church's Magisterium, which enjoys the assistance of the Holy Spirit. May God grant that this Presumption of elevating a personal judgement or personal experience into a rule or criterion of religious doctrine may notcause havoc. May God never allow that treating these private opinions as charismatic gifts and prophetic inspirations should lead astray so many good and well-meaning people." On Oct. 25th 1972: "a pretentious charismatic sufficiency will not preserve an authentic vivifying presence of the Holy Spirit in these spiritualistic trends, in which, sadly enough, it is often easy to see dissent or profane mentalities infiltrated. The needs of theChurch are very different."

Pope John Paul I had a lot to say, and said it before his election. His very short life as Vicar of Christ on earth, only thirty-three days, providentially brought to the notice of the world what he had written. Addressing St. Theresa of Avila in his book Illustrissimi he says:

Charismatic experiences are not anyone's private reserve. They may be given to anyone: priests and laymen, men and women. It is one thing though, to beable to have visions, and quite another to actually have them. In your Libro de las fundaciones I find written: "a woman penitent told her confessor that the Madonna often came to see her and stayed talking for over an hour, revealing the future and many other things to her. And as something true occasionally emerged from all the nonsense, it all seemed to be true. I realised at once what it was all about ... but merely told the confessor to wait for the result of the prophesies, to find our for himself about the penitent's way of life and to look for further signs of sanctity in her. In the end ... it was seen that her visions were all fantasies." Dear St. Theresa, if only you could come back today! The word "charisma" is squandered. All kinds of people are known as prophets, even the students who confront the-police in the streets, or the guerrillas of Latin America. People try to set up the Charismatics in opposition to the pastors. What would you say? You who obeyed your confessors, even when their advice turned out to be the opposite of that given to you by God in prayer?"

Our present Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, when he addresses Charismatic groups follows the usual format. There is a kindly greeting. There is a word of pleasure and approval that they have gathered in Rome because their choice of Rome shows that they understand the importance of being rooted in that Catholic unity of Faith and charity which finds its visible centre in the See of Peter. Then he teaches, and the teaching, if analysed, is a series of warnings. In general these are:-

*
Fidelity to the authentic teaching of the Faith. Whatever contradicts this doctrine does not come from the spirit.
*
Value the gifts which are given in service of the common good.
*
Pursue that charity alone which brings the Christian to perfection.

Time and again the Holy Father stresses the need for good leaders and good priests with the requisite theology. But in practice, if these leaders and priests become part of the Charismatic Renewal and do not remain outside it, they become moulded by it, gradually moulded by emotional experiences which overthrow in them that which constituted them a possible safeguard for others. If they remain outside, they carry no weight because these Charismatics are not charismatics in the sense that St. Theresa of Avila was.

Conclusion

A priest writer in GoodNews notes sadly
In many places, and not only in the more developed nations, the charismatic renewal is limping badly, diminishing in numbers and in the power of the Holy Spirit, and even dying.

There is hope, he adds. Yes, there is indeed hope that CCR is dying. The great experiment, which it was 'prophesied' would revitalise the Church, has clearly failed - and not for want of enthusiasm or resources. The Popes have warned us against it and the theological problems it raises are manifest. But it is still active in parishes and dioceses up and down the country, and should be exposed for what it is and opposed. Do not let them lead another generation of impressionable, and increasingly badly-formed, young Catholics down the path of Pentecostalism.

For more on the Charismatic movement within the Church, see John Vennari's description a Catholic Charismatic conference, and some theological implications of the movement, here. There is an excellent Christian Order article here, written by someone who was heavily involved in movement in the UK in the 1990s. This article exposes the techniques and realities of charismatic phenomena and how attractive it can be; it deserves a wider audience.

Catholic experts comment on Obama's Notre Dame speech

I've invited four Catholic experts to comment during President Obama's speechat University of Notre Dame today. You can hear the speech yourself on the university's webcast, on C-Span1or MSNBC. Follow our coverage in our news coverage and keep track of Faith & Reason panelists by refreshing your screen often right here.

4 P.M. UPDATE: Michael Sean Winters saved his fire for the end. He found Obama's views on faith and doubt "bewildering."

His honorary doctorate is a doctorate of laws, not a doctorate in theology and the speech should have avoided this sophomoric foray into the nature of faith.

Winters is "guessing" that the huge tribute to Rev. Hesburgh "was done at the request of Notre Dame officials who know Father Ted's magic will help with alumni donors."

The President was kind not to point out that the GOP has done nothing to lower the abortion rate and so far from being "pro-abortion" his policies aim at lowering the abortion rate here and now, not in some remote and frankly unlikely criminalization of abortion. George W. Bush would make a phone call to the Right-to-Life march every January. Not sure what that did to help women facing crisis pregnancies.

Chittister, a Notre Dame graduate, says,

The strength of this speech is that it calls people beyond the temptation to impose our personal positions whatever the cost to the universal principles of the Golden Rule. He asks no one to change their own religious principles. Instead, he asks us to maintain our faith with confidence so that we can all both learn and teach one another. This speech will be a catalyst for a higher national discussion than the particular issue that prompted it.

I've asked the panel for their overall remarks so watch for a new post shortly..

3:45 UPDATE: Obama's speech concludes to a standing ovation. He spoke of

... the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It is no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule - the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. To serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth.

He told the story of how Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, former president of Notre Dame, brought together 12 diverse members of the Civil Rights Commission to create the foundational resolutions of the civil rights act. Hesburgh took them all fishing -- a place of common ground.

I will not pretend that the challenges we face will be easy, or that the answers will come quickly, or that all our differences and divisions will fade happily away. Life is not that simple. It never has been.

But as you leave here today, remember the lessons of Cardinal Bernardin, of Father Hesburgh, of movements for change both large and small. Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family and the same fulfillment of a life well-lived. Remember that in the end, we are all fishermen.

3:40 UPDATE: Obama described his work as a community organizer in Chicago working with a Catholic-church funded effort that pulled together an "eclectic crew:"

Catholic and Protestant churches. Jewish and African-American organizers. Working-class black and white and Hispanic residents. All of us with different experiences. All of us with different beliefs. But all of us learned to work side by side because all of us saw in these neighborhoods other human beings who needed our help - to find jobs and improve schools. We were bound together in the service of others.

He cites Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, the late Archbishop of Chicago and "a saintly man" who always spoke his mind but was "always trying to find common ground" who said, "You can't really get on with preaching the Gospel until you've touched minds and hearts."

The graduate's he said will face all their challenges while...

You will hear talking heads scream on cable, read blogs that claim definitive knowledge, and watch politicians pretend to know what they're talking about. Occasionally, you may also have the great fortune of seeing important issues debated by well-intentioned, brilliant minds.

They should speak their minds, hold firmly to faith, stand as a lighthouse.

But remember too that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us, and those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.

Lawler finds this morally confusing:

The sight of the president standing at the country's biggest Catholic podium, literally wearing the badge of Catholicism, pontificating on the meaning of dialogue, tells viewers who might not understand the Catholic perspective on the issues that the Church believes that a principled stand on problems like abortion is beyond the realm of dialogue. Fr. Jenkins is responsible for the moral confusion that results from this episode.

Maniscalco says,

The president speaks of universal principles but seems to treat many beliefs in a relativistic way -- my belief is as good as yours. Reducing abortion is not the same protecting life (positively).

3:35 UPDATE:

The 163rd graduation class of the university, Obama says, must deal with the global economy, the environment and the world's need for peace and we must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity - diversity of thought, of culture, and of belief. In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family.

...Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history.

The difficulties in finding common ground are legion. Selfishness, prejudice, fear, and human nature itself, he said, citing

...the imperfections of man - our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin.

It is "vexing" that "even bringing together persons of good will, men and women of principle and purpose, can be difficult, particularly without "demonizing" those who disagree.

The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son;s or daughter's hardships can be relieved.

Obama tells how he changed his own web site during the campaign after a pro-life physician emailed that he though it was not fair-minded to call people like him "idealogues." That phrase was removed, he said,

And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me.

Because when we do that -- when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do -- that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."Â

(Applause punctuated every sentence in that paragraph).

He calls for "Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words" -- a way of life he called the Notre Dame tradition.

Maniscalco notes, "Chrisian tradition" and "original sin" -- not heard too often from politicians." and that this "Call to responsibility and "one human family" are themes Catholics would resonate with."

3:15 p.m. UPDATE:The President began with a joke about his honorary degree.

I know it has not been without controversy. I don't know if you're aware of this, but these honorary degrees are apparently pretty hard to come by. So far I'm only 1 for 2 as President. Father Hesburgh is 150 for 150. I guess that's better. Father Ted, after the ceremony, maybe you can give me some pointers on how to boost my average. The President began with a joke about his honorary degree.

(Maniscalco notes: "Good joke. But it highlights ND might have got away with only having him speak.")

3:10 p.m. UPDATE: Rev. Jenkins is giving a resounding introduction to Obama, saying that while much attention was paid to the invitation to Obama, little has been paid to why the president chose to accept and to address a community that disagrees with him on pro-life issues.

Lawler is unimpressed::

Fr. Jenkins's introduction pits those who favor dialogue against those who "demonize" or "condemn" others. This obviously has overtones for the debate over Obama's appearance. Fr. Jenkins intentionally misunderstands the difference between seeking dialogue with those who oppose you and honoring them. Again, no one at Notre Dame would object to a dialogue with the president -- it is just that commencement and an honorary degree do not constitute a dialogue at all.

Chittister says,

Graduates made a clear statement in their opening applause of Obama's welcome at Notre Dame that the pursuit of ideas, from all perspectives, are still the foundation of a Catholic university.

2:50 P.M. UPDATE: President Obama is awarded an honorary doctorate, "not for the demonstration for potential to improve the world but for its actual accomplishment," says University of Notre Dame president Rev. John Jenkins. He cite's Obama's "willingness to engage with those who disagree with him," as well as his commitment to diplomacy and his welcome to voice of faith to bring their views to the table.

If anyone objects, they're not in the camera sight-line for the university video and only cheers can be heard.

2:25 P.M. UPDATE: The president has entered to resounding cheers (but networks report that a nearby campus prayer grotto is full of protesters, too). Winters notes:

The absence of a member of the hierarchy, however, is glaring. The bishops have delivered their snub. Hard to believe that they couldn't find a way to welcome him and express their ambivalence at the same time.

Lawler says,

A picture is worth a thousand words, and this picture says that the nation's most prominent Catholic university welcomes the president, his policies not withstanding.

Chittister's comments in advance of the speech are that inviting Obama to speak was "right and necessary...

It is a sign of political majority and responsibility to a new group of voters, the proof that the country and the university take them seriously. It is not a brainwashing act. What he says and does is their responsibility to evaluate now with the rest of us, as we must now do in regard to the other eight Presidents awarded honorary degree, including the most recent George W. Bush.

Obama's task, she says, is to "assure the public that this new stem cell initiative does not permit the creation of stem cells for either research or cloning.

2:10 P.M. UPDATE: Huffington Post is carrying what it says is the text of Obama's speech. Read for yourself here. Obama is entering the stadium now.

Sure enough, he will talk about the need to find "common ground" by working bi-partisanly to reduce the number of abortions, promote adoption, and provide for expecting mothers. Of course, those are all things that the pro-life movement already excels at doing. So in that sense it is, as expected, a huge disappointment. He will talk about a "sensible conscience clause," which would hearten pro-life advocates except for his recent decision to do precisely the reverse: undo many of the conscience clause protections enacted by executive order by President Bush. A misleading statement, it seems.

2 P.M. UPDATE: Earlier posts are below.

Before the speech, I asked experts: Was Notre Dame wrong to extend the invitation to an honorary degree and the commencement speech? What could Obama say that might draw -- or drive away Catholic leadership and the public?

-- Michael Sean Winters had no problem with Notre Dame's decisions and a great deal of problems with the strong protests by more than 70 Catholic bishops. He says, they look like "they are taking their talking points from The Republican National Committee."

As the administration and Congress get ready to debate health care and immigration reform, issues the bishops also care about deeply, the President is within his rights to tell the bishops they will not have a seat at the table seeing as they have spent much of the past two months embarrassing him in public. I don't think he will do that. I do think the bishops need to take steps to repair their relationship with the administration.

He says, if Obama

re-iterates his commitment to reducing the abortion rate(something Republican administrations have not accomplished) he will appeal to most centrist Catholics - the swing voters - who are concerned about abortion and won't vote for anyone who dismisses Catholic concerns on the issue, but who also recognize the GOP has not delivered and it is time for a new political approach for the pro-life movement. Once he clears that "threshold" most centrist Catholics agree with the President on virtually every other issue.

-- Joseph Lawler disagrees on all points. He says Obama's track record violates the guidance of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops which says, institutions should not offer honors to those who "act in defiance of fundamental Catholic principles."

Some of those actions include repeal of the Mexico City policy, the reversal on President Bush's stem-cell research restrictions, and the efforts to undo certain conscience clause provisions for doctors, he says.

Even so, Lawler says,

There is plenty that Obama could say to please his pro-life opponents. Any signal that he would reaffirm the conscience clause, protect parental notification laws, or promise to oppose government funding for abortion, etc., would be viewed as a major step forward for pro-lifers. Language about reducing the number of abortions, however, without addressing the policies he is promoting that directly increase the number of abortions, will fall flat and increase the divide. It is never too late for the president to cross the divide with pro-life opponents, but he has to give them something real.

ORIGINAL NOON POST:

Here's more about them and the perspectives they may offer.

Joseph Lawler, a 2008 alumnus of Notre Dame where he was managing editor of an independent Orthodox Catholic newspaper, recently notedthat Obama, who shies away from sectarian prayer and symbolism at public events, will don Notre Dame's doctoral robes "prominently featuring a cross and a prayer to Mary in Latin meaning 'Our life, our sweetness, and our hope.'"

In an earlier post, he writes

...The Church hierarchy has, when it has spoken on the issue, clearly and unambiguously condemned Notre Dame's decision to honor Obama. At last count 70 American bishops, including 4 cardinals, had responded publicly to the Notre Dame situation. All were at least skeptical of Notre Dame's choice, and many denounced the university officials in strong language.

Msgr. Francis Maniscalco, former spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and now public policy director for the diocese of Rockville Centre, N.Y., heads the diocese's Respect Life office.

His objections to Obama's actions on this topic look as well into move the president thas made to open federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Maniscalco wrote, in a discussion on the soul:

The human embryo deserves respect and protection for that reason and because it alone among developing creatures is destined to receive an immortal soul at whatever moment God chooses to create it.

Maniscalco also served on my panel of experts commenting when Obama and Sen. John McCain appeared last summer at a forum at Saddleback Church (Rick Warren's megachurch in California). That's the time when Obama, asked when life begins, said the answer was "above my pay grade." Maniscalco said,

To grant that abortion is a moral issue but to duck when human life begins is at best inconsistent. One would think it is vital (no pun intended) to think though exactly that question. (Obama's) unguarded line about not punishing a daughter of his with a child really hurt him in the pro-life movement.

Sister Joan Chittister, author of numerous books on peace and contemporary spirituality. The former prioress of the Benedictine Sisters of Erie, PA., recently analyzed the church's need for renewal in an article for the National Catholic Reporter. In it she notes that the Church cannot quell all the new ideas afloat, including,

"...ideas we don't want to hear, for ideas that are continually disrupting the past, for thinking groups of Christians who are beginning to organize themselves. Now the task is no longer to suppress dissent; it is to keep up with it, just in case, as the sixth-century Rule of Benedict says of visitors who point out difficult things to the community about itself, "God guided them to the monastery for this very reason."

Free lance writer and blogger Michael Sean Winters, author of Left at the Altar: How the Democrats Lost the Catholics and How the Catholics Can Save the Democrats, is also a correspondent for the British Catholic weekly, The Tablet.

There he wrote his own version of the speech Obama "ought" to give at Notre Dame, focusing on areas where people can find common ground. I can't link to the full text as it's subscription only but David Gibson excerpts from Winters-as-Obama here, including this passage.

I believe that common-sense proposals to try to reduce the abortion rate are the only available common ground. I believe that if we stop shouting at each other and listen to the women who are actually facing an unplanned pregnancy, we will find plenty of work to do to help them through a difficult chapter in their lives ... I believe that if we seek common ground on this most divisive of issues, it will be easier for us to work together on the other urgent moral tasks facing our nation.

In an America magazine post, Winters points out why he thinks 54% of Catholics voted for Obama despite his positions on life issues that conflict with Church teachings:

...While we recognize that our concern for the unborn springs from the same part of the Catholic heart as our concern for the poor, for the immigrant, for those who lack health care, many voters concluded that the Republicans were paying lip service on abortion and it was better to vote our moral conscience on these other issues where we are already seeing a difference.

Keep your screen set on Faith & Reason (and The Oval where our political writers will be live-blogging Obama's text) for the panels commentary during the speech. Refresh your screen often for updates once the speech begins.

USA Today

Each Faith Offers Ethics Guidelines

Shortly after the Bernard Madoff story broke, "Religion & Ethics Newsweekly" broadcast a program called "Jewish Reaction to Madoff Scandal."

Among those interviewed was Robert Lappin of the Robert I. Lappin Charitable Foundation of Salem, Mass., which trains teachers and educates children about Judaism and sends Jewish teens to Israel.

Lappin was only one of thousands of Madoff's victims. So was his foundation. Money manager Madoff pleaded guilty to a multibillion-dollar investment fraud.

The foundation's funds and most of Lappin's personal funds were wiped out. The foundation closed, but supporters have rallied to help. Many Jewish institutions and charities had invested with Madoff, and some were forced to close.

In the broadcast, Rabbi Yitzchok Breitowitz of Silver Spring, Md., said Madoff's crime was an affront to the Jewish religion.

"When a person behaves in such a way that the Jewish people, the Jewish religion, the Torah and ultimately God is treated with disrespect and disdain in the eyes of others, that is considered to be a sin that is much more serious than the particular actions which constituted the sin in the first place," he said.

"The Talmud in fact tells us when we go up to heaven and give an accounting of ourselves, the very first question that the Almighty asks us is whether we conducted our business affairs with integrity and honesty.

"If you are not honest in business, you are not a religious Jew, because the same Bible, the same God that requires certain ritual observances - keeping kosher, observing the Shabbat and the like - says you have to be honest in your business affairs."

As with Judaism, other faiths have teachings and principles that should serve as guidelines for conducting business ethically.

Among them:

Christianity: Henry Spaulding, Christian ethics professor at Nazarene Theological Seminary in Kansas City, Mo., said the Christian faith should be lived out in all of life, including business.

This holistic approach to morality means "the virtues of graciousness, fairness, justice, generosity and honesty should guide a Christian business scheme for ethics," he said.

He said Christians in business should form associations that will help them to promote moral values in their business practices.

"Whether a person owns the business or works for the one who owns the business, the Christian narrative calls for the virtues of graciousness, fairness, justice, generosity and honesty," he said. "Therefore, if an employee is asked to do something that is unethical, the answer should be 'no.' If there is cost to this, then it is part of what it means to bear the cross of Christ."

Islam: Because Islam looks at itself as a way of life, not just a religion, business ethics cannot be separated from a Muslim's daily life, said professor Rafik Beekun, author of "Islamic Business Ethics" and co-director of the Center for Corporate Governance and Business Ethics at the University of Nevada.

"In the Qur'an, man is described as the trustee of God on earth, so he must act in accordance with the conditions of that trust," he said. "The role model for Muslims is the Prophet, and the word that God uses to describe the Prophet's pattern of behavior is khuluq, which is a derivative of the word 'ethics.' So the role model for Muslims should be a model of behavior that is based on ethics."

Because Islam does not distinguish between a person's public and private life, work and business are viewed as acts of worship, Beekun said.

"So if I'm not cheating my customers and suppliers, I not only get the benefit from the sale to my customers, but my ethical behavior would also be considered a good deed by God," he said.

In Islam, various concepts are important in a business relationship. These include justice, trust, benevolence and fair wages.

Hinduism: Hasu Doshi, who has been a businessman for more than 30 years and is active in the Kansas City Hindu community, said his spiritual faith and Indian cultural heritage form the basis of his business philosophy.

He has integrated five principles into his business acumen, he said.

1) Karma: "The belief that one does to others as he or she wants done to oneself," he said. "I treat my clients and business partners with the same respect and professionalism as I would want to be treated."

2) Aham Brahmsa: "The belief that Braham (or god) exists within me and all living beings, in many different forms. I keep this in mind when I interact and talk to other professionals."

3) The whole can only be the sum of its parts: "The belief that everyone is needed to accomplish a task successfully, and at the end of the day, whatever I accomplished was done to the best of my ability."

4) Pure thoughts: "The belief that everything that I think, say or do should be clean and especially moral."

5) Equanimity: "Evenness of mind, especially under stress. I make daily business decisions based on reason and not on emotion."

Buddhism: With what has happened in the corporate world, many people have feelings of anger and resentment, said Ron Bremer, a Kansas City businessman who has conducted workshops on business ethics in Buddhism.

"Buddhism teaches us that these emotions are the direct cause of our suffering and offers a path for overcoming them," he said. "One step along that path is called 'right livelihood,' and it means making one's chosen work part of one's spiritual practice, not some secular thing separate and apart."

There is no better place for spiritual practice than in the workplace, Bremer said.

"Buddhism teaches us not to harm others, to help others and to purify our own minds," he said. "When faced with unethical behavior in business, we can choose not to respond in kind under the mistaken view of 'meeting the competition.'

"We can set an example of ethical business behavior that respects our colleagues, our customer and yes, even our competitors in the full knowledge that our business practices are part of our spiritual practice of helping everyone with whom we come into contact."

Most of all, a person can control his or her actions and emotions that arise from interactions with others.

"Will all of this guarantee personal financial success in the business world?" Bremer asked. "Of course not. But it will guarantee that we will be part of the solution and not part of the problem."

By HELEN T. GRAY

Pastor Reflects on Japan Trip

The Rev. Bob Byrne has returned home to St. Paul Lutheran Church after a six-month stay in the Far East.

Byrne and his wife Chris left Aiken on Oct. 1 bound for Japan, where they spent six months working as missionaries through the Japan Evangelical Lutheran Church, headquartered in Tokyo. The Byrnes returned home on March 31.

The couple were the first missionaries to serve in all five of the Japan Evangelical Lutheran Church's districts, spending two months in the Tokyo area, a month on the island of Kyushu, a month in the Kamagasaki slum district of Osaka, a month in Nagoya and the final month on the island of Hokkaido.

Byrne said his most profound experiences on the trip came while working with the homeless, alcoholics and drug addicts in the Kamagasaki slum, which is reputed to be the worst slum district in Japan. The couple, their translators and Japan Evangelical Lutheran Church pastors went out on night patrols from 9 p.m. to 2 a.m. each night.

"We'd be checking on the homeless sleeping on the streets, basically checking to see if they were still alive," he said. "We'd be pulling a cart with pieces of cardboard, donated blankets, tea, soup and onigiri - rice balls - which we'd made that afternoon. We'd go through the district and make a note of where the homeless were; if they were awake, we'd make a note of what they already had. If they were asleep, we'd wake them, ask them if they were not sleeping on cardboard and give them some if not, ask if they needed medical attention and take them to where they could get some."

"It's impossible to tell about the impact that experience has on your life and your theology," he continued. "It's beyond description, but it changes your outlook. What got my attention was that the first thing we'd do when we came in after night patrol was gargle with a strong antiviral mouthwash - it tastes horrible, it's like iodine - to prevent contraction of TB, which is very much alive and well in the slums."

Living in the slum with those to whom they were ministering was essential, he said. It gave them a chance to get to know their neighbors and a basis on which to build trust.

Byrne said he delivered approximately 45 sermons and presentations in 21 weeks, all through a translator, at churches and social organizations with ties to the Japan Evangelical Lutheran Church such as schools, orphanages, senior homes, homes for the abused and homes for children with disabilities. Most of his audiences were made up of non-Christians; less than 1 percent of Japan's population is Christian, and all are converts from Japan's cultural religions, mainly Shintoism and a Japanese variant of Buddhism.

"There was no recognition of Jesus, of course; Shinto is a belief system of purity and nature, and Buddhism generally involves ancestor worship, in many different versions. Within both, there are literally thousands of gods - the idea of one God in Jesus Christ is a totally foreign concept," Byrne said.

The experience has had, what Byrne thinks, will have a lasting effect upon his preaching style.

"When you're not fluent in a foreign language, no matter how many degrees you have, you're illiterate. You have to listen more than you ever do in your own culture," he said. "It's very humbling. So I'm bringing back an expanded sense of humility. Because I preached with translators, it demanded a great clarity of thought and imagery, and the sermons had to be shorter. I learned to preach with the same or greater clarity in 10 minutes, because however much time you're given, you need half that for translating. It caused me to relearn what is most crucial in parish ministry, the Bible and clearly proclaiming its truth to people."

This was Byrne's third and longest trip to Japan. He spent six months prior to the trip immersed in study of the language and culture.

"All the study was useful, especially the cultural study. What was wide of the mark was the idea that any level of study would be enough to speak the language. They say it takes two years of intensive study to hold even simple conversations," he said.

"I would do this again, but I don't know if the experience could ever be repeated," Byrne said of the extended mission trip. "But given the right set of circumstances and the feeling of God's calling to me, I would do it again."

By SUZANNE R. STONE

The Aftermath of Satan

The future appears to be global, and if we want to thrive there, the concept of "pure evil" has to be discarded. As fuel for hostility, nothing is more combustible. After 9/11, angry mobs massing in Baghdad against the U.S. weren't just seen as unemployed young Arab males — they became symbols of unrepentant hatred, while jihadists became evil monsters with no regard for innocent lives. The more evil we projected onto "them," the aliens threatening our safety, the less human they became. If the future becomes global, however, projections of pure evil have no breathing room anymore. Everyone is becoming our neighbor, and with the dissolving of borders, everyone must be seen as human, however angry and extreme their actions.

I think the loosening grip of the Satan myth is a touchstone for change. Two weeks ago I participated in a televised debate on the existence of Satan. Some speakers were still firmly holding on to the traditional image of Satan as a supernatural demigod, rival to the real God, arch enemy of human happiness, and at the most basic level, a personage one can meet face-to-face. Yet whenever I or someone else on my side of the debate suggested otherwise — that evil is rooted in human behavior, that foisting evil off on a mythical figure was a copout from taking responsibility for our own bad impulses — there were positive reactions from the audience.

This and many other signs indicate that Satan is on the wane. We are in the aftermath of the age of faith; church attendance has been steadily declining in the U.S. and Europe for decades. As part of this religious waning, Satan has also declined. So much so that it's hard to remember a time when educated, free-thinking people reserved at least a tiny, secret corner where belief in Satan — or pure evil — resided.

More importantly, a positive kind of spirituality has arisen that doesn't need Satan. He is necessary in the battle for souls that pits good against evil in the scheme of Christianity. Without the threat of damnation, the incentive for salvation is severely weakened. But many cultures have had no need for absolute evil, including the Greeks, Romans, Hindus, and Buddhists. Quite often these cultures had supernatural explanations for bad events (e.g., demons, imps, mischievous and capricious gods), and it is almost universally believed that the afterlife will be different for evildoers and the virtuous. An innate sense of fairness makes it hard to think that wrongdoing doesn't eventually arrive at a just punishment. But millions of people who reject religion or pay it almost no attention lead perfectly well-adjusted lives without the threat of Satan hanging over them.

Of course, there were still some boos when I called Satan a primitive aspect of human belief, tearful pleas for me to come into the light, and even not so veiled suggestions that I was doing the Devil's work. I came away from the debate saddened by the testimonials from fervent believers who claimed to have met the Devil personally or to have barely escaped the fires of damnation. But Satan has lost a lot of his mojo nonetheless. In an age where serial killers are labeled as psychopaths rather than agents of sin, we can examine contributing factors like child abuse, peer pressure, mental disorders, impaired brain function, and other things that fall under the rubric of sick rather than evil. The study of psychology, long rooted in aberrant behavior and neurosis, is itself shifting. The new field of positive psychology has begun to establish what makes people happy instead of what makes them unhappy. This is an important distinction, because instead of being one step away from divine punishment — as everyone must be if all are sinners — we could be one step away from the happiness that is our birthright. In the aftermath of Satan, the expansion of well-being promises to replace the eternal battle between good and evil, which only served to make evil more powerful than it has any right to be.

Deepak Chopra

Relations Between Different Religions and Cultures

Medical Care is Arranged for Illegal Immigrants in Hamburg -- Celibacy of Priests has Become a Controversial Topic in Poland -- Chinese Chan Continues to Thrive in Taiwan -- Catholic Pilgrims use Modern Means of Transport to Reach Santiago de Compostela

Undocumented immigrants have no civil rights and live in constant fear of deportation. But what happens when they get sick? Being undocumented means they usually have no health insurance, which can be a matter of life or death. The Organization of Medical Counseling of Refugees and Immigrants in Hamburg arranges medical care for undocumented immigrants. They estimate that 50,000 to 100,000 immigrants wihout papers are living in that big northern German port city.

(Report: Jana Pareigis)



Twenty years have passed since the end of communism in Poland and there are signs that the institution that inspired the struggle against the regime, the Catholic Church, is under threat in the democratic consumerist society. Under communism, becoming a priest was a step up the social ladder. But now the number of young men entering seminaries is falling and a recent survey says that more than half of the country’s serving priests want to do away with celibacy to have a wife and family. Twelve percent even admitted they were already living in stable relationships with women.

(Report: Adam Easton)

Chinese Chan is an Orthodox and puristic form of Buddhism with strict rites and abstinence from any beliefs in deities. Self-purification through the practice of meditation and the mission to bring harmony and peace into the world, mark the Mahayana Buddhism as it is practiced today. Although Buddhism was suppressed in China during the Cultural Revolution, it still thrived on the Pacific island of Taiwan, just 200 kilometers off shore the Chinese Mainland. Major centers of Chan Buddhism have been established here, which today spread their influence all over the world.



(Report: Antonia Sachtleben)



The road to Santiago de Compostela is as varied as the pilgrims who travel along it. Ever since the Middle Ages, the cathedral with the relics of St. James has been the goal of religious pilgrims. They came on foot, horse back or by donkey across the mountains to pay their respects to the Saint whose remains are still venerated in the Cathedral of Santiago. But modern pilgrims use modern means to travel the long road to the holy city. Today it is not unusual for pilgrims to use bicycles and some even arrive by train.



(Report: Mariana Schroeder)

Young Haitian-Americans turn to voodoo for cultural and spiritual connection

Ricardo Petit-Homme left Haiti when he was four, and was raised a staunch Catholic.

"From christening to penance and then confirmation, I did it all," the 30-year-old interior decorator said.

But not that long ago, he felt spiritually disconnected. He had dreams that needed to be interpreted, questions about his purpose and a burning desire to connect more deeply with his roots. He turned to voodoo.

"I like that, with voodoo, the spirituality comes from within," Petit-Homme said, as he joined in a voodoo ceremony in North Miami Beach, Florida. "I feel like I'm piecing together a puzzle."

Voodoo, also spelled vodou, is witnessing a resurgence among younger Haitian-Americans. In southern Florida, where the Haitian community is estimated to be close to 300,000, scholars and voodoo priests say more people in their 20s and 30s are finding the religion.

Voodoo blends African religions with Catholic saints. Followers believe there is one God and deities who manifest to serve different purposes, such as healing and protecting. The religion shares west African roots with Santeria practiced in Cuba, Obeah in Jamaica and Macumba of Brazil. Experts estimate that about 60 million people worldwide practice some form of voodoo.

It is hard to quantify the religion's growth since voodoo is often practiced in one's home, explained Elizabeth McAlister, a professor of religion at Wesleyan University, who has written extensively about voodoo.

But research shows the religion is becoming more prevalent among well-heeled first and second generation Haitians, as well as people of various backgrounds, she said.

Ruby LaCroix, 39, of West Palm Beach, became intrigued by voodoo when she began to study Haiti's history in college. She left Haiti when she was eight years old and had questions about some of the traditions she grew up watching her grandmother practice.
"I was looking to find out more about myself, about being Haitian and what that means," she said.

Gone, for most, is the shame that used to be associated with the stigmatised religion. Unlike some of their parents who practiced voodoo in secrecy, the newcomers to the religion invite friends to voodoo ceremonies, have altars in their homes and work to shatter the stereotypes.

Followers say Hollywood gave the religion a bad rap with representations of zombies, spells and dolls. They say those calling on spirits to do harm are practicing sorcery, not voodoo.

"A lot of people think voodoo is devilish. They think it's a doll with spirits but it's not that," said voodoo priest Erol Josue. "Voodoo is a way of life. voodoo is dignity, it's a celebration."

Referred to as a houngan, Josue, 38, does not fit the stereotypical image of a voodoo priest.

He's a musician raised in voodoo, with a MySpace page and a CD called Regleman, featuring voodoo music to a global beat. His CD was featured on The World's music segment on Public Radio International.

"We're not asking people to convert," he said. "But young people need to know where they came from."

On a recent Saturday, Josue hosted a voodoo cleansing ceremony at his house on a quiet street in North Miami, not far from the Aventura shopping mall. The ceremony, held at the beginning of every year, attracted people from West Palm Beach to Homestead, and lasted eight hours. Participants danced, sang and fell into trances.

Everyone began by dipping their hands in a white enamel basin filled with fragrant leaves, oils and water for good luck and protection.

The gathering of about 25 men and women ranged from teenagers to seniors, and included teachers, college students and artists.

Sherline Fontus, a 31-year-old mother who lives in Fort Lauderdale, said rediscovering the religion has filled her with a sense of freedom. "You feel like you're home."

The ceremony lasted through the night into the early morning, with the participants singing in call and response style, as Josue and others led them through richly textured songs in Creole.

"Ouve barye pou nou," they chanted - "open the gates for us."

Amid the singing and chanting, men drink beer as women hand out small cups of a Haitian soup with spinach, dumplings and meat.

The mood is relaxed, with bouts of intensity as people start to act out the characteristics of an invoked spirit. One woman, feeling moved by the spirit of the seas, sways like the tides of an ocean.

A table against the wall in the living room is filled with offerings for the spirits: eggs for Damballah, the fertile snake god of the waters; roses for Erzulie, the female spirit of love; a machete with a red handkerchief, for the warrior spirit Ogou - and bottles upon bottles of rum.

"Once upon a time everything connected to Africa was shameful, including skin colour and hair texture," said Dr Patrick Bellegarde-Smith, a professor of Africology at the University of Wisconsin. "But now you have a number of American scholars who are into voodoo."

Jacqueline Manigat, a 28-year-old kindergarten teacher from Miami, was always curious about voodoo. When she was young, her mom had a "secret room" where she communicated with voodoo spirits. At the beginning of the school year, her mom would pray over a white pot of water - calling for the ancestors to guide her children and make their year a success.

Six years ago, Manigat became a voodoo priestess. Now she consults the same spirits for guidance she watched her mother call upon.

"I like that there is tolerance," she said. "No matter who you are in voodoo, you are welcome."

Guardian

A Jewish Perspective on the Jhanas

The jhanas are states of heightened concentration that have been cultivated by Hindus and Buddhists for just under three thousand years. They are altered states, full of bliss and, I would say, holiness, and they play a central role in the Buddha's Eightfold Path ("right concentration"). Recently, I completed two months of silent meditation retreat devoted to the jhana practice. I went with certain intentions and expectations, which I'll discuss in a moment, but the experience was more profound and more religious than I expected. After a few introductory notes, I will describe my experiences of the jhanic states and describe what I believe to be their significance for Jewish theology and spirituality. As far as I know, such a project has not been attempted before.

1. What I did, and why I did it

I wish to make three introductory notes. First, I want to explain why I undertook this rigorous practice, which involved sitting still for extended periods of time (usually, 90 to 120 minutes), and spending the entire day doing nothing but observing the sensations of the breath at the nostrils, even while walking, eating, et cetera. I had three reasons, and discovered two additional ones during the retreat.

First, my real goal is liberation from the delusions of ego and the clinging nature of the mind: to learn to let go of clinging. On the Theravada Buddhist path, liberation comes from insight: directly seeing and knowing that all phenomena are empty of substance, impermanent, and fruitless to cling to. Insight, in turn, depends on concentration; you've got to get really quiet to see these characteristics clearly. So I went to learn concentration skills as a kind of prerequisite for a four-month retreat that I am on now, as this article is published.

Second, I went because jhana itself helps insight. Distractions and hindrances are suppressed in jhana, and the experience is deeply purifying and refreshing; one emerges with an extremely sharp, clear, and quiet mind, ready to do the rigorous, moment-to-moment noticing that leads to insight.

Third and finally, I did this practice because I was curious about jhana itself. On earlier retreats, I experienced what many meditators experience when their minds become concentrated: deep contentment, bless, gratitude, love, and awe at the beauty and miraculousness of ordinary life. Jhanas are like those concentrated mindstates squared, amplified, distilled -- and I wanted to see what they were like.

Along the way, I discovered two additional purposes to the practice. One is the deep "purification of mind" that is required to enter jhana: you really have to see and let go of all of your stuff, which in my case included a lot of grief, confusion, loneliness, ego, expectation, and just plain chatter. Every moment is an opportunity to let go of all this stuff, and I had a number of extremely powerful openings that perhaps I'll write about some other day.

In addition, the jhanas were themselves a powerful lesson in letting go. They are like everything I had dreamed about from the moment I became interested in spirituality as a young adult. Imagine your greatest dreams fulfilled, in oceans of light, bliss, love, and mystical union. Now imagine that you have to let them go. This is the lesson: that even the greatest of states arise and pass. You can't hold onto anything conditioned, even the dearest and most precious experiences imaginable. This insight alone was surely worth the price of admission.

The type of practice-what I did

My second prefatory note concerns the type of practice I did. There are different schools of thought among Buddhist teachers as to what constitutes a jhana and how to cultivate it. Some hold that discursive thought and perception of the outside world must completely stop for a jhana to be truly taking place. In this model, a jhana is a totally absorbed state of mind; the meditator is only aware of the object of meditation (more on that in a moment), and nothing else. Even the passage of time is not noticed in such an absorbed state. Other teachers, however, will say that a jhana has commenced as soon as its factors are in place and an obviously altered state of mind has arisen.

My own practice was a hybrid of these two approaches. I studied with perhaps the Buddhist world's leading expert on jhana practice, who holds the more strict view. Yet after a full month of rigorous concentration, I was unable to achieve total absorption as his practice demanded. I would enter clearly altered states, but would still be aware of strong bodily sensations and the sense of time. Therefore, after one month, I switched to the more moderate approach, which I had learned earlier. I still cultivated the jhana in the "strict" method: I concentrated on the sensation of breath at the nostrils until the mind formed a mental image of the breath -- a white cloudy light called a nimitta. The nimitta would then become my exclusive focus of concentration. But I proceeded through the first four jhanas even though the absorption was not total. My experiences, as profound and powerful as they are, should thus be understood as only partial in nature. I am a beginner -- some might say a failure -- not a teacher and not an expert in these practices.

(For detailed description of jhanic states and practice, please read Shaila Catherine's Focused and Fearless, the best contemporary book on the jhanas. The best online resource is my teacher Leigh Brasington's website, where you can learn more about the stricter approach.)

Jhanas are better

That said, my third and final prefatory note is that I actually do have a fair amount of experience with mystical states, and these blow all those experiences out of the water. With the possible exception of ayahuasca, I have never encountered anything like this -- and I have spent many years meditating, davening, doing energy work, and engaging in a wonderfully wide range of ecstatic and contemplative practices. Without being too arrogant about it (which would be an ironic reversal of the point of spiritual practice!), I think I know whereof I speak.

When I described some of my experiences to a friend, she remarked that they sounded similar to what Elizabeth Gilbert describes in her book Eat, Pray, Love. I had precisely the experiences Gilbert describes on my first meditation retreats, six years ago. They are world-shattering, mind-altering, and profound. They provide a direct experience of what generations of mystics have described in glowing mystical terms. I do not wish to minimize them, and have described them in these pages in the past ("You Are God in Drag," "What the World Is"). But the jhanas were far, far more powerful and more profound -- perhaps an order of magnitude more. They're like the qualities of those earlier experiences, well, concentrated, refined, and distilled. If what Gilbert, and I in those earlier essays, described is like a lovely Hershey's Kiss, the jhanas are like a rich, hot molten chocolate cake. Get it?

2. Mikvas of light

With those provisos out of the way, I will now describe my experiences of each of the four basic jhanas. (There are actually eight jhanas, but the other four are less essential to insight practice. Moreover, while I had some limited experiences with them, they require their own essay.) While the descriptions that follow may seem hyperbolic and overblown, I assure you that I am deliberately understating and underdescribing the experiences. Every writer who describes the jhanas does this. I don't want to condition your experience by telling you too much, and I don't want to heighten your expectations should you undertake jhana practice yourself (which I hope you will).

First Jhana

The first jhana is like the "big wow," an awesome peak experience that arises after the mind has finally settled on the object of concentration with focused, sustained, one-pointed attention. Bodily or emotional rapture called piti may arise, suffusing the body with bliss or filling the mind with awe--sometimes the feeling is more "gross" and embodied, other times more subtle and purely mental. In my experience, the nimitta would become radiant, awesome, and beautiful, and grow to fill my entire field of vision, and surround my body; the experience was like a glowing, energetic light surrounding and cocooning my whole being. It's quite captivating. There is also a sense of seclusion--of finally being safe from the chattering mind. From my Jewish spiritual perspective, this was like holiness as the big amazing awesomeness, full of mysterium tremendum and radical amazement. It's Niagara Falls, the Grand Canyon. Like many mystics, I'll use erotic analogies as well; the first jhana is like having sex, before orgasm: panting, arousing, ah--ahh---ahh--- that sort of thing.

Eventually, though, the first jhana begins to feel like too much effort. You have to work to keep it up. This is its advantage--if you didn't work, you wouldn't get in--but eventually, after anywhere from fifteen minutes to an hour or more (my longest was one hour), the mind gets tired of ecstasy, excitement, and bliss and moves naturally onto the second jhana. The transition between jhanas is always from gross to subtle: the more gross factors drop off, revealing the more subtle ones underneath. In the case of first-to-second, the factors of applied and sustained thought drop, and the other factors--rapture, joy, and one-pointedness of mind--reveal themselves more. Usually this "drop" is conscious; after a few weeks of practice, I would feel a kind of mental itchiness when it was time to move on, and would consciously resolve to let the factors drop and the others predominate. A few times, though, the drop happened automatically; the mind would just bail out. Eventually, the four jhanas are kind of like four rooms in a house that you've come to know; you don't even have to make the resolve clearly, because you know the territory, and can recognize it and adjust quite naturally.

Second Jhana

In the second jhana, the feeling tone shifts to joy--"drenched in delight" in Shaila Catherine's words. Effort drops away, and the mind rests one-pointed on its focus. I experienced the second jhana as being like swimming in a mikva of light--in my journal one time, I wrote that when the nimitta expands, it is a "waterfall of shimmering light that fills your body with joy." Again, sometimes this was a semi-bodily sensation, other times purely mental. There was often a bright light in my eyes as well--more on that below--and sometimes a deep sense of healing. This is it, you're here, you can trust and let go. The sexual analogy here is to the time of orgasm itself--not the first moment, but the longer period of time if, like me, you like really long and drawn-out orgasmic states. It's like that gorgeous sexual feeling of letting go: not ah-ah-ah, but ahhhhhh. Sometimes it really felt as if the light were kissing me, penetrating me, filling me. This is God as lover; the fascinans, the erotic partner envisioned and embodied by mystics. It's really something.

Believe it or not, the mind eventually finds all this ecstasy, even without effort, a little gross. Piti becomes too showy; it's almost exhausting. Now, when I was first learning the jhanas, I would spend several days with each one before moving on. Part of this was to really nail down the jhana; the Buddha said that someone who moves on too fast is like a foolish cow wandering from pasture to pasture. But another part was that it took me a while to get disenchanted with these states. For several days, I couldn't imagine anything more wonderful than the second jhana. But eventually, disenchantment sets in--once again, an insight that is, itself, worth the price of admission. Eventually, the mind gets disenchanted with anything. So the grosser factor of rapture drops away, leaving behind only joy and one-pointedness.
Third Jhana

If the second jhana is like an orgasm with God, the third jhana is like resting comfortably on the breast of the Goddess; its dominant sensation is contentment. Here, the love is less erotic and more familial; it's like being cradled by your mother--that kind of "ahh." The light I experienced was golden, radiant, and warm. Many times, I cried and felt healed. Other times, I was still and concentrated. And sometimes, I felt like a little boy sitting by the window, with sunshine streaming in. In the third jhana, piti is relinquished, and sukha, joy, becomes predominant. Sukha is quieter and more subtle than piti, it's less embodied, and more like an emotional, intellectual joy with a honey-like embodied component. Meditators know sukha from whenever the mind in concentrated and everything just feels lovely. The mind is content. What could ever be wrong with the world? Of course, sukha is so lovely that we naturally cling to it, which means we suffer when it's gone -- that's what's wrong. But for me, I spent about three years cultivating sukha, thinking it was enlightenment, and being devastated when, a few days after retreat, it seemed to disappear.
Fourth Jhana
Finally, there is the fourth jhana--the real point of it all, it sometimes seems. In the fourth jhana, even joy passes away. The experience is totally neutral: just "Ah," as in "Ah, I see." And yet, it somehow--just is. I can't quite describe it; there's a powerful sense of equanimity, a closeness to the object, and not much else. Somehow, this state is the most beautiful at all, even though it is totally colorless, bliss-less. The erotic flavor is not even post-orgasmic; it's post-post. The mind is clear, the restlessness is gone. It doesn't feel good anymore, but in some deep profound way, it feels extremely good and peaceful that it's not even necessary to feel good. This is not the Shechinah, not awe, not love; it's just YHVH--Is. It's a love beyond love; satisfaction without joy or even contentment.

For me, the fourth jhana is really the point, because it leads to one of the deep insights of the jhanas: that God is not in the fire, or the earthquake, or the flood. There's a tendency that all of us have--but particularly spiritual Jews have--to deify and thus idol-ize certain states. Oh, that gorgeous warmth of lighting candles. Oh, we were so high during that drum circle / Kabbalat Shabbat / whatever, that was reall,y mamash, it. But that's not it. It is what's always here; Ein Sof, everything. If it wasn't always here, it isn't it. Even the fourth jhana isn't it--it's a state, with equanimity and focus that are conditioned, and thus pass away after a time. You can't cling to it either.

Real devekut has only one attachment: Is. Totally colorless, totally omnipresent, and in fact, if you look closely, the only thing that doesn't come and go. Ramana Maharshi said, "Let come what comes, let go what goes. See what remains." That is the essence of enlightenment right there, I'm telling you. The way leads nowhere. There is no state that is it. This is it; just this. Not feeling special about this, not feeling relaxed or wise or anything in particular--although sometimes those feelings may arise in the wake of letting go. Just is.

Now, does that mean that mystical states -- including the jhanas themselves -- are without value? No; not at all. By fulfilling this spiritual seeker's wildest dreams of joy and rapture, the jhanas point to the limitations of states, chiefly their transient nature. And next month, I'll describe in some detail the benefits as well as the limitations of spiritual states of all kinds, mundane to marvelous. First, though, I want to focus on a different question: God.

Essay will continue.

By Jay Michaelson