Sometimes Simple = Spiritual

I was recently watching a CNN interview of Larry King with Garth Brooks. I was not really interested but I was in China and there was not much else on television so I listened as I worked on my computer. Slowly I was drawn in. While Garth Brooks did not say anything incredible, it slowly dawned on me that this was someone who had figured quite a lot of life's important lessons and was able to articulate them in the simplest of terms.

He was humble, grateful, understood the value and importance of relationships, spoke in loving terms in respect to his ex-wife and the mother of his children (summed up along the lines of "we are no longer husband and wife but we will never stop being mom and dad"), and exuded something extremely positive.

It was quite surprising as I had never seen him before and had never heard his music before and I did not know much about him either. Something in his simplicity struck me as being extremely beautiful and extremely human. Apparently his music has that effect on many as it turns out that he is one of the best selling artists and performers in the US over the last decade or so.

He also appears to live by one of the principles of management that I think is key - "we succeeded, I failed"...

One of the most striking things, to me, was the simplicity with which he spoke. Short sentences, no fancy vocabulary, but able, nonetheless, to express very deep ideas and the degree to which he cared about many people (family, friends, colleagues). Impressive.

The man is clearly no saint and even admitted to being attracted to the dark side of the law. However the way he spoke, his demeanor, and the life intelligence he expressed were all strikingly unconventional. Not an idiot savant by any means but an example (and a reminder to me) of how wisdom and spirituality can come in apparently simple packages.

Excited about a new book on the way - Talking with Angels

I have just ordered the French-language version of a book called Dialogues with the Angel in French but translated into Talking with Angels in English by Gitta Mallasz. It is apparently another case of "scribum deus" by which the author/s were inspired to write or felt they were not their own words (i.e. they took dication from a higher source). This story is interesting as it took place over 17 months among 4 Jewish friends in Hungary right before the second world war. Only the author survived the war and lived to tell the incredible story.

Similar books I have read and loved, mentioned in early blog posts include Conversations with God (Conversations with God : An Uncommon Dialogue (Book 1)), A Course in Miracles (A Course in Miracles: Combined Volume) and Many Lives Many Masters (Many Lives, Many Masters: The True Story of a Prominent Psychiatrist, His Young Patient, and the Past-Life Therapy That Changed Both Their Lives)

I still haven't received my copy yet but I hope to be able to share some pearls of wisdom for you from this book once I have time to dig into it...

Daniel Kahneman: The riddle of experience vs. memory | Video on TED.com

A very brief post which is none other than a link to an interesting TED talk by the Nobel prize winner on behavioral economics. Here is a talk about experiencing happiness...

Food for thought and for improving our awareness of the experience of happiness rather than relying on our fickle memory.

Enjoy

Daniel Kahneman: The riddle of experience vs. memory | Video on TED.com

Spirituality in a glass of wine (yup!)

I am reading the most wonderful book on wine, Terry Theise's Reading Between the Wines. As I mentioned earlier in a recent post, spirituality, when you look out for it, pops up in the most unexpected places.

My intention is not to do a book review but just to share with you some of the ideas that have come to mind since starting to read the book. Terry talks about connectedness, of listening to what the wine has to say or is trying to express, of the way wine will make anyone who tries to tame the subject quite modest, of the links between nature and wine, and more...

Reading this got me thinking about how wine is also a vessel for a lot of "here and now" type meditation. When you taste a glass of wine, or rather when you stop to taste a glass of wine, you put everything else aside and concentrate all of your senses on the task at hand. One-pointedness, total concentration, listening to what messages your senses are sending you... sounds a bit like zen meditation to me.

The book is just wonderful and anyone who even slightly enjoys wine would love to read it. I learned a lot and have enjoyed it quite a bit on a lot of different levels (personal anecdotes, language, travel stories, ...).

Plus anyone that quotes Ouspensky's Tertium Organum in a book on wine can't be all bad : )

Who has time to be spiritual?

Well it has been a while since I have posted to this site. And it has been some time since I have had time to take stock of anything spiritual, except to notice that I really haven't had time "to be spiritual" of late.

Even worse, I would say that any illusion of spirituality or of thinking/acting a bit differently flies out of the window when I am tired, under work stress, lacking sleep. Exactly when you need spirituality most it seems to be most elusive.

After the heat of the moments I remember some of the spiritual lessons and kick myself for not being able to apply them during the moment of truth. Reading the different spiritual books and sources has given me many tools to deal with stress and I think I do ok for the most part managing stress, but there are still too many slip-ups for me to look myself in the mirror and say 'you done ok kiddo'. Maybe one day. In any case, I just wanted to share with you some of my favorite 'stop and reframe' tricks. If you can call it a trick. In any case, it is something that I hope you can use more efficiently than I have in recent months, but that when I have used them have helped me quite a bit to diffuse otherwise delicate situations.

Two of my favorites are as follows:

•  The first, "What would love do now?" when in a confrontatational situation with someone. Taking a deep breath and saying to myself "ok, if I acted from a place of love and caring for this person how would I act in this situation, how could I react more positively?" This has helped me rewrite quite a large number of emails that otherwise would have been more ballistic and less constructive...
• A second, "This is not being done to me" which is kind of a mind set in which I remind myself that even though the person involved in some friction is not behaving as I would prefer, they are not doing it "to me" rather that is just something they are acting out with me. I got this one from the Course in Miracles and I am explaining it poorly, but it is very powerful reframing approach which helps me especially in 'altercations' with strangers when someone acts meanly or spitefully without provocation. 

Anyway, short but I am now being kicked out of the cafe that I am writing this from. I hope this helps a little bit and in any case I am happy to be back : )

Giving (better) advice or giving advice (better)

One of the things that are tough to deal with in our post-modern world is the whole notion of giving advice. And that is for many reasons. The more we read and search and learn the more we have a willingness to share that knowledge with others. And sometimes that "willingness to share" comes out less neutral than we would like and more like advice.

Then there are many hang-ups about advice. We all have our own but often I know that I feel that maybe giving advice is a form of arrogance? I mean really, without going to the extent of Socrates, do I really know enough about anything to justify giving advice? Then there are the social takes on advice, like only give advice when you are asked. Or the post-modern injunction of "everyone is ok as is" which I guess kind of precludes any advice that could possibly change someone. Then there is the Venus-Mars world in which apparently women are not looking for advice in respect to any problems/situations/decisions, they just want to be heard. Advice, such we are told, is a Mars no-no.

Spiritually-speaking, the more we delve the more we realize that the unseen is greater than the seen, that we understand a lot less than we think, and that what may ring true to us on one level may be seen from an entirely different perspective from another. Without going too far into that debate, it is clear that advice, in that spirit, is a slippery slope.

That said, we are often confronted with friends, colleagues, family members who either ask for or seem to need our advice. What to do, what to do?


An interesting answer to the question is given in a recent blog post in Psychology Today in which behavioralists seem to have cracked the code on effectivly giving advice. They looked into the way people actually use advice and found four main kinds of advice:  

• Advice for (a recommendation),  
• Advice against,  
• Decision support (suggesting how to make a decision); and 
• Information (offering new information about a subject).

Interestingly, decision makers seem to value the feeling (or illusion) of making their own decision independently. Thus the first three forms of advice makes the decision maker feel they have lost a bit of autonomy in making a choice. However, when the advice is given solely as information the decision can listen to and use the information without feeling like they have not made up their own minds - independently.

And if that wasn't enough, when you give advice as information it also helps the person receiving the advice in future related decisions and makes them more confident about their choice.

So there you have it, a little perspective on giving advice. However, please note that this post was made on a purely informative basis : )

Being and becoming

This post was inspired by an article read in EnlightenNext magazine (formerly What is Enlightenment?) - my favorite magazine over the last 6 years since I last discovered it.

The article was a discussion in a series of discussions between Ken Wilber (an 'integral philosopher') and Andrew Cohen (a 'spiritual leader' and founder of the magazine) on vertical and horizontal development.

It is actually one of their best discussions and one that is particularly a propos for 'our' generation in which there is a lot of confusion, I find, about what becoming a better person actually means - which is something I imagine most of us strive for (some more or less actively and/or consciously).

Without rewriting the article, the main idea in their words is that horizontal development is about being a better you, i.e. improving (without getting into what that means). While vertical development is about becoming a new 'you' (quotes mine, as the you changes I figure it merits something to show the before-after element). Wilber differentiates between the two as horizontal pertaining to being and vertical dealing with becoming. Both agree that both are necessary.

My own take on this, as I try to explain it to myself, is that horizontal development is about improving or personal improvement. Something I think every one of us sees as a goal at some level. Vertical development, I see as evolving into something new.

Now I see this also as a wonderful goal, and share at some level the belief of the authors that this is possible. At the same time I wonder if this is not simply human hubris. Let me explain.

A major element/theme in EnlightenNext magazine is evolutionary consciousness, levels of spiritual development and the belief in the ability of human beings to evolve as a race and as people. Now the first part, evolving as a race, from one generation to the next is something that appears clear and, thanks to Darwin et al., not too difficult to see over the history of our planet. The second, being able to evolve within our lifetimes, and to consciously evolve (i.e. something that does not happen by accident or mutation) requires a bigger leap of faith. Can we really change in the sense of becoming something or someone new or can we only become "better" or "more" of what we already are?

Most of the faith-based religions would say the latter. Even Buddhism shows enlightenment as an awareness of something you already were (and forgot), i.e. a reconnecting with not a reinventing of.

In other words, can we give credence or, better yet, experience the idea put into words by Cohen, "we're not simply making the self, as it is, better. We are engaging with the spiritual process in such a way that the result is going to be the emergence of some quality, ability and capacity that was not there before"?

I tend to think so and I hope so. But maybe that is just my own hubris...

The Afterlife... a question of perspective?

I recently read a book called Sum: forty tales from the afterlives by David Eagleman. Not the most insightful or deep book but it did present several versions of possible afterlives in a quick and witty format. Which led me to think a little bit about how much our personal perspective about the afterlife/afterlives plays or should color our approach to our present life. 

What you believe about the afterlife, what form you think it may or may not take, the existence of some form of continuity after this life, could make a big difference about how you live during this one. Without going into extremes about those who give up this life for promises of virgins, riches or paradise in another life, it seems like an important point that needs to be verified by each one of us. However, this question leads us, naturally, straight into the arms of either philosophy or blind faith (or both) as the answer cannot be known in this life. A bit of a paradox isn't it?!

Anyway, while thinking this over a song by Prince, which may or may not have a direct relation to philosophy or blind faith, which is called Let's Go Crazy. Some of the words go like this:

Electric word life

It means forever and that's a mighty long time

But I'm here 2 tell u

There's something else

The afterworld

A world of never ending happiness

U can always see the sun, day or night

So when u call up that shrink in Beverly Hills

U know the one - Dr Everything'll Be Alright

Instead of asking him how much of your time is left

Ask him how much of your mind, baby

'Cuz in this life

Things are much harder than in the afterworld

In this life

You're on your own

The final line of the above lyrics, which is not the last line of the song, is a bit brutal or honest or brutally honest (depending on how you want to see it). But depending on your perspective on both life and the afterlife, this may not be your own truth. 


As you mull over that, it is interesting to consider the role that the afterlife has played in different religions, philosophies and quasi-religions like Buddhism. The perspective on the hereafter definitely colors everything else. Oddly enough, in Judaism and Christianity, mentions of the afterlife seem to have been edited out of the religion as it has been presented to the masses. While discussions and texts refering to the afterlife have been debated among scholars, mystics and the 'initiated'. 


One interesting approach is that each individual experiences the afterlife as they imagine it. For those who imagine a fiery hell, that is what they get, just as those who imagine floating from cloud to cloud playing a harp will get to experience that image. Maybe this is the universe's way of allowing everyone to be right : ) 


The joke is on us though as we will be able to say 'Aha! I was right!' but we may possibly not have anyone to say it too!


I have one book that has been looking at me from my bookshelf for some time now. Heaven and Hell by Emmanuel Swedenborg, someone who took a very long look at the question. If I finally heed it's call, I will let you know what I think about it. In the meantime, be careful about your own perspective - because in this instance you may get what you wish for...

I am dualistic about Buddhism

Following up on my last post (a bit late due to an intense work schedule) I would like to comment on another text on Buddhism. After my last post I had an exchange with a former student of mine from China who is one of those people with whom you feel "spiritual toughness". What I mean by that is that you do meet occasionally people who seem illuminated or extremely spiritual or having some special "white" energy. At other times you feel people (and I mean feel as a synonym for a form of meeting people) who are extremely solid and grounded thanks to their spirituality. This was the feeling I received from this former student, now a friend, when he spoke of different elements of Taoism and Buddhism. After my last post I sent him a copy by e-mail as some blogs are blocked occasionally in some countries and cannot be consulted directly (another thing to be thankful for). In reply we had an interesting exchange. One thing he wrote me was the story used by Taoists to speak about Taoism.

The story goes something like this. A Taoist is like a man with hands and feet bound in ropes dangling over a cliff and holding on to a branch only with his teeth. Knowing this, we must be careful when we talk about Taoism. Knowing this, we talk about Taoism.

I thought this was a great image! If you open your mouth it's over, and yet we need to open our mouths... This was also his feedback, politely, concerning my writing about Buddhism. I should be careful I guess before I open my mouth. And this is true. Throughout this blog I am writing mostly about things of which I know very little of. I read a bit, according to the hasard of books, texts, ideas that cross my path, and react without the depth that comes from true understanding. Knowing that, I still open my mouth : ) 

As a follow up to my exchange by e-mail I was also sent a text called Buddhism in a Nutshell, written by Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche of siddhartasintent.org. The text is quite interesting and really does get to the essence of what Buddhism is and is not. In four points, DKR explains that:

1. All compounded things are impermanent (and all phenomena are compounded).
2. All emotions are painful.
3. All phenomena are empty.
4. Nirvana is beyond extremes.

Even the path (Dharma) and the Buddha is impermanent, empty and an illusion. However DKR uses a wonderful image to explain why it is necessary. If you are trying to find someone you have never met, I can describe the person, show you a picture of the person, tell you what I know about the person and that way you can go and find the real person.

One of the reasons I am dualistic about Buddhism (pun intended) is that even Siddharta taught Buddhism three different ways. Instead of saying that his thinking evolved, Buddhists show some marketing moxy by calling it The Three Turnings of The Wheel and explaining it not as a "change of mind" (another intended pun) but as necessary evolutions in his teaching - which in all fairness does make sense.

In case you are curious, the three turnings are about a central element of spirituality, the mind. In the first turning the Buddha taught that there is a mind. In the second turning he taught that there is no mind. In the third turning he taught that mind is luminous. Different Buddhist commentators have interpreted the meaning of this evolution in Buddha's teachings, of which I know little. So on this subject of Buddha's change of mind concerning mind I will not open my mouth and leave you while dangling over the proverbial taoist cliff...