Return to Oneness
OK, I got a few things wrong yesterday. The name of teacher I was thinking of is Leslie Temple-Thurston. The book she wrote is "Return to Oneness: The 7 Keys of Ascension." "Keys to Ascension" is a Yes CD. Not a bad one, but certainly not on the level of their '70s prog rock genius. The CD I had in mind is "Burning Karma." They say don't judge a book by its cover, but actually I rather like the cover art of her books, that's what attracted me to her stuff. I guess that's the whole point of adversitizing - it's superficial, and the whole point of the saying is to not judge by appearances but to look within. I don't know much about her teachings. They seem OK. I will get that CD, and I will report later on whether any of my karmas were burned away. It sounds like some fitness program - use this machine, take this pill, burn away that nasty belly fat. That's how spirituality is in the modern marketplace. If there is truly a simple way to burn karma, I promise to share my knowledge with you, my loyal readers.

Burning Away Karma
I was thinking of what I wrote yesterday. I ended that asceticism is not about punishment or redemption of sins. Is that true?

I'm thinking of the great Tibetan saint Milarapa. Supposedly (I take such accounts with a grain of salt) there was this guy who was a black sorcerer and he attacked an enemy family with magic. He caused all sorts of calamities like a hail storm, and an accident to their house during a wedding, and it resulted in scores of deaths. He later regretted his actions, and wanted to study with the famous ascetic Marpa. Perhaps he was tired of the cycle of violence (like that line in the Godfather "every time I try to get out, they pull me back in!").

Marpa put him through all types of grueling practices. He took asceticism to the nth degree, I believe some of the meditation was called "piercing the heart of nectar." He went through pain to the other side. He was burning up his bad karma, not just from that lifetime, but all his past lives. After this, he became enlightened.

I guess asceticism can be a redemption. But the difference is that pain and punishment are not permanent in Buddhism. No one will suffer forever. In Christian terms, I would say that God, in His infinite compassion, forgives all, even the most wicked. That's a welcome relief to all the fuck ups of the world, including me!

There's a teacher out there, I forget her name, she's the one who wrote "Keys to Ascension," who sells a CD on her website called "Burn Away Karma." I don't know if it's possible to do that, but I'm curious. I know that in yogic and Buddhist theory, karma starts with the mind. However, we cannot control the mind. If we could, there'd be no point to meditation. So we start with things we do have some degree of control - speech and actions. From the grosser levels we can work up to the subtle. I would imagine burning away karma would be a long arduous process. I wish there was a short cut, but hey, karma is part of the fun of life, right?

The Lost Art of Asceticism
Hello readers! Any fans of my website can check out my new blog. I chose the Yoga template, however, this blog is not specifically about that. I chose that template because it had a sort of "spiritual" look (whatever that means) but I will just post my random musings, it won't necessarily be boxed into one specific subject. Hope you enjoy!

I was reading an article in the New Britain Herald last week about whether certain medieval ascetic practices are officially sanctioned, or even encouraged, by the Catholic Church. As I understand it, these practices were done by monastics, not lay-people. I mean, if anyone wanted to try such a thing, I don't see how an authoritative body could actively prohibit it, although I suppose the police could take you away to a mental institution if they felt that your behavior was weird enough. But if people are not commiting suicide or are not trying to hurt anyone, and they want to try such things, I say let them do it. The caveat being that most people, I would assume, would not willingly do such things. Supposedly, the first followers of Jesus renounced their former lifestyles and lived very simply. This served as an inspiration for Christian monks, but they also took matters into their own hands. One thinks of Saint Francis of Assisi, or the even more extreme Saint Joseph of Cupertino. As in all religions, exploration eventually became institutionalized. Is there any benefit from doing such things?

Buddhism starts with a recognition that people try to avoid pain and gain pleasure. This is not an earth shaking revelation, pretty much common sense. Asceticism seems like the exception that proves the rule. Why would anyone willingly do this? Well, for some, the spiritual path requires reversing our worldly habits. Instead of avoiding pain, we face it. Instead of seeking pleasure, we renounce it. Pema Chodron explains the Tibetan practice of Tonglon in similar terms. True compassion means transforming pain into happiness, and sending out our happiness.

Of course, in Buddhism the ascetic usually receives material aid from others, and what they give back is usually non-tangible benefits. What I respect about Christian asceticism is that not only do they voluntarily renounce wealth, they actually work to aid the poor while themselves being poor. This is compassion in its highest sense, ?to struggle with.? The three vows of a monk/nun are ?poverty, chastity, and service.? The cynical British journalist Christopher Hitchens believes that Mother Theresa, and I would assume monastics in general, given his hatred of religion, didn't really love the poor, she loved poverty. Myself, I think the best way to help the poor is to appeal to those who are materially abundant and convince them that others are more in need. The religious loophole that?s used by the rich is that Jesus taught that if you give a man a fish, he eats for a day, but if you teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime. But self-sufficiency is not an excuse to deny others their basic needs. How many of us can learn on an empty stomach? Poor people can only help poor people so much. However, for someone to give without a guarantee of a reward they must value non-possessiveness, of which the ascetic is a prime example example. I think Mother Theresa, for all her faults, did care about the poor. It's often rich people, who have never known what poverty is like, who have little empathy (the emotion that precedes compassion).

Asceticism is part of most major religions for several different reasons. The cultural contexts are different, but I think there is one overall theme that is the same - transcendence. In Hindu Yoga, one remains indifferent to temporary ups and downs, in order to unite with God (personal or impersonal) which is infinite bliss. In Jainism there is severe asceticism, but the point is to cut off all the causes of future suffering by breaking the chains of all karma, even good karma. One actually becomes immune to such pain as one transcends the world. Sadhus are known to do such things as sleeping on a bed of nails, walking on hot coals, and piercing their body with long needles.

In Latin America and Latin Asia some Christians celebrate the ascension of Christ by actually crucifying themselves. For some of the people revered by the Catholic Church, one of the signs of their holiness was the ?stigmata,? a miracle in which the same wounds inflicted on Jesus as he was nailed to the cross would appear on your hands. There is an historical context to all of this.

An early sect of Judaism called ?Essenes,? prepared for God to redeem the world, seeing themselves as ?the sons of light.? Since everyone else belonged to ?the sons of darkness,? there had to be pure people in the world for God to redeem it. Christ's death itself represents this principle - individual sacrifice for the good of ALL. This is all reminiscent of the Iranian religion of Manichaeism.

Speaking of which, there are the practices of Shi'ite Muslims who celebrate their martyred leader Ali by self-flagellation. Out of respect for the sacrifice of their leader, men whip themselves with chains.

A misconception about asceticism is that it's about pain, when it's actually the transcendence of pain. People in the S&M community, or bondage/domination, or whatever they call themselves these days, are well aware of this. Biologically, the body sometimes emits powerful hormones to overcome the effects of otherwise debilitating conditions. The pain-pleasure mechanism is tightly linked in the nervous system, and the wires can easily be crossed. Pain can be pleasurable! I can understand how some people think sado-masochism is fun, even ?spiritual.? This is not surprising, modern America trivializes the sacred.

S&M is an attempt, perhaps flawed, to recover the lost art of asceticism. I'm not against S&M, as long as it?s voluntary, I say have fun with it. I get a sense that S&M is for those who are bored with vanilla sex and want a stronger dose of stimulation and emotional release. But that's all it is - getting off.

As for sadism, I don?t know if there?s anything healthy about it. I understand that it?s the other side of the coin, that you can?t have masochism without sadism. But is this a character trait we should develop? It's fine in the ?safe? environment of a S&M club. The distinctions between voluntary or involuntary torture are not always so neat. Maybe in a club sadism is cute, but when we have soldiers invading other countries, Abu Ghraib is the inevitable result of such attitudes.

I remember reading George Orwell writing about how Gandhi's image of self-denial was disgusting to his English sensibilities. How could one deny oneself the pleasures of life? For example, being a vegetarian out of compassion for animals is misguided (certainly animals don't have such compassion for each other, though I would argue that other animals don't have the same free will as the human variety). Self-restraint is just not cool. In India, self-restraint was traditionally seen as a respectable achievement, this was certainly the case in the Buddha's time (though according to another article I read in the same newspaper, this tradition is less popular as India today).

The medieval Christian God seemed very sadistic. In this context, perhaps asceticism was a means to please God. Better to punish yourself before God does! But why would God want the best among us to suffer the most? Who would want to worship such a God?

Christianity is an axial age faith, and like all axial age faiths it incorporated pagan roots, however much it might not want to admit it. Pre-axial faiths generally had sacrifices to gods. If you're giving a gift to a deity, you better give a good gift! You don't just sacrifice any animal, you give your juiciest ones. You don't just sacrifice anyone, you pick the innocent. (I read in anthropology that virgins were not seen as necessarily being pure or virtuous, because there wasn't yet a concept of sex as being bad. Rather, virgins were important because they had a strange power. People did not fully understand how sex resulted in birth, so they thought women created life by connecting to the goddess. Thus, the virgin conserved his or her life giving energy and has some of the deity's powers).

So if asceticism is not about punishment or redemption of sin, what's the point? I say, as in all things, follow the middle way. The goal is not about pain or pleasure, but timeless Truth.