Give me a good digestion, Lord,
and also something to digest.
Give me a healthy body, Lord,
with sense to keep it at its best.
Give me a healthy mind, good Lord,
to keep the good and pure in sight,
which seeing sin, is not appalled,
but finds a way to set it right.
Give me a mind that is not bored;
that does not whimper, whine or sigh.
Don't let me worry overmuch
about the fussy thing called I.
Give me a sense of humor, Lord;
give me the grace to see a joke,
to get some happiness from life
and pass it on to the other folk.
September 19, 2009
September 9, 2009
This is good
So there I was, waiting for the bus home, feeling sluggish because of an exhaustive round at my acupuncturist's. I leaned against the side of the bus shed, reading the latest issue of "Science of Mind Magazine", idly paging through the daily affirmations. I started reading the accompanying text for today's:
Sometimes it's easy to forget that there is only one volitional factor in the Universe, and that is Spirit.
Easy to believe when things go well. Instead of feeling abandoned by God when things don't go well, the article suggests we focus on the above-mentioned core truth - one power, one source:
Then we could say, "This must be good. It's all God, so let me look for the good."
As I read that, a wailing ambulance drove by. I continued to hear it for a while, remembering that a friend had said that because of having to drive in and out of streets to get to the urgent care entrance, which was within view from my bus stop, you could hear the ambulance all over the place. Another ambulance drove past and stopped at the end of our long bus turnout. Out jumped the two-person ambulance team: A man and a woman. They stood and discussed something for a bit, then the woman started walking towards us.
She looked first in one bus shed, then the next. Realizing whomever she was looking for was to be found in a bus shed, I turned and looked inside ours. I was a bit startled to see a man with a somewhat bloody nose sitting on the bench. I hadn't noticed him at all before. He didn't look all there but he didn't look too hurt, either, so I turned back and looked at the approaching woman. I wasn't sure if my guy was her guy so did nothing. She soon enough was at our shed, and yes, our man was the one she was looking for.
As she asked him if he'd fallen and hurt himself, it was very clear that he was in no condition to answer. An empty fifth of vodka lay on the ground next to him. The male of the ambulance team had now caught up and together he and his partner managed to drag the injured man to his feet and down the sidewalk. His feet were of barely any use to him. They headed slowly for the parked ambulance at the end of the block, lights still flashing, doors left wide open.
As I watched them, I tested what I had just read. I said to myself, "this is good," and immediately felt overwhelmed with gratitude. I was grateful that I live in a society where someone saw the man fall and called for an ambulance. Grateful that the ambulance people came and made the effort to look for the man. Grateful that they found him and took him with them. Grateful that in the meantime, the ambulance was left perfectly alone and unharmed (someone had stolen a police car from an accident scene a week or so earlier). Grateful that any of us could happen to get a little too falling-down drunk for our own good and still be cared about.
This is good. It is all good.
June 6, 2009
Gratitude is attitude
Gratitude is about making a list over everything you have to be thankful for: Health, family, job, home, food, a lovely day, a gift from a friend, a computer to write a blog on, electricity to run the computer.
That's what some who teach about gratitude say. Me, I disagree.
Oh, making a list every day is a very helpful tool for increasing awareness about how much you have to be grateful for. But that's all it is, in my opinion: A tool.
The goal is not to make lists, but to be be naturally grateful without thinking.
I have observed people who are struggling. They write a list all right - a list of all their troubles. Then they end it with a list of things to be grateful for, as if the two cancel each other out.
They don't.
Or: They write their lists to in order to make deals with higher powers: If I am grateful, then the Universe will take my problems away, seems to be the attitude then. Some people's gratitude lists or blog posts read rather like the bargaining some people do with God or children do with Santa Claus: "I'll be good and grateful, if you'll only..."
The thing is, gratitude is attitude, nothing else. No behavior, no deal, no give and take (!). Attitude is a habitual and often unconscious way of thinking. If I am to describe what the attitude of gratitude feels like, then I would say it most closely resembles living in the now. I find that when I am filled with gratitude over noticing a pretty flower, I am in the moment, in the now. I stand still and listen to a bird singing, and find myself thanking the bird (although I know he's just hoping some (other) female will show up). I'm really thanking the moment and my own good sense to allow myself to have it. Appreciation is gratitude.
Why stop to smell the roses? Because we consider roses pretty? Because they do smell good? Or because paying attention, allowing yourself to use your senses makes you feel more whole, more alive? I'd say that last one is it. It helps you live in the now. And gratitude adds to that feeling.
So why not make a list? It depends on why you make the list. Some people start keeping gratitude journals because they are trying to change their lives. They want to increase prosperity or abundance in their lives, or they want to complain less. Gratitude is part of abundance, and it is counting your blessings, so they try to increase their thankfulness. And one way to focus on things to give thanks for is to write them down.
However, all too often, writing gratitude lists or focusing on giving thanks accidentally focuses on the opposite. I'll let Eric Butterworth in his book "Spiritual Economics - the prosperity process" explain:
I write no lists. I have come across books that encourage such things, but I never found them interesting or useful. And, ironically, I find blogs that function as gratitude journals boring to read - probably because they are just an elaborate list.
This blog post is the result of me questioning my apparent lack of thankfulness since I don't write lists, nor do I end my day by meditating over all the good things that have happened or by visioning tomorrow's blessings. And yet I have a good life, few worries, and the sense to appreciate the good in my life and around me any time of day. So I wondered what was the difference between me and the list-makers.
My answer is in the approach and the mentality behind it. In my experience, gratitude is very similar to living in the moment, which means being able to enjoy the here and now and appreciate it. True gratitude is not about lists or even about being good. True gratitude is about perspective. It's about understanding what is important in life, in your life. It's about the big picture. Details to be happy about should function as reminders of that fact, not as a goal in themselves. Let me quote Eric Butterworth again:
Butterworth then goes on to explain a statement of Paul's: "In all things give thanks." [Corinth. 12:1) However, Paul doesn't say "For all things give thanks", Butterworth points out. That wording would mean being grateful for everything, including your problems. Again, it's not about making a list; it's about attitude:
The heart that is grateful runs on automatic, pulling in more good feelings and therefore more good without a second thought on your part. It's far better than a list!
[1] 1 Thessalonians 5:18
That's what some who teach about gratitude say. Me, I disagree.
Oh, making a list every day is a very helpful tool for increasing awareness about how much you have to be grateful for. But that's all it is, in my opinion: A tool.
The goal is not to make lists, but to be be naturally grateful without thinking.
I have observed people who are struggling. They write a list all right - a list of all their troubles. Then they end it with a list of things to be grateful for, as if the two cancel each other out.
They don't.
Or: They write their lists to in order to make deals with higher powers: If I am grateful, then the Universe will take my problems away, seems to be the attitude then. Some people's gratitude lists or blog posts read rather like the bargaining some people do with God or children do with Santa Claus: "I'll be good and grateful, if you'll only..."
The thing is, gratitude is attitude, nothing else. No behavior, no deal, no give and take (!). Attitude is a habitual and often unconscious way of thinking. If I am to describe what the attitude of gratitude feels like, then I would say it most closely resembles living in the now. I find that when I am filled with gratitude over noticing a pretty flower, I am in the moment, in the now. I stand still and listen to a bird singing, and find myself thanking the bird (although I know he's just hoping some (other) female will show up). I'm really thanking the moment and my own good sense to allow myself to have it. Appreciation is gratitude.
Why stop to smell the roses? Because we consider roses pretty? Because they do smell good? Or because paying attention, allowing yourself to use your senses makes you feel more whole, more alive? I'd say that last one is it. It helps you live in the now. And gratitude adds to that feeling.
So why not make a list? It depends on why you make the list. Some people start keeping gratitude journals because they are trying to change their lives. They want to increase prosperity or abundance in their lives, or they want to complain less. Gratitude is part of abundance, and it is counting your blessings, so they try to increase their thankfulness. And one way to focus on things to give thanks for is to write them down.
However, all too often, writing gratitude lists or focusing on giving thanks accidentally focuses on the opposite. I'll let Eric Butterworth in his book "Spiritual Economics - the prosperity process" explain:
Some persons, realizing the importance of the grateful heart, begin looking for things for which to give thanks. However, they mistakenly start with the perspective of inadequacy and insufficiency, and thus they simply become more conscious of limitations. The result is, instead of counting their blessings, they count their envies: "He is so talented"; "She has so many lovely things"; or "I wish I had a lovely home like they have." As a result of this very subtle process, they develop, paradoxically, "ungrateful hearts".
I write no lists. I have come across books that encourage such things, but I never found them interesting or useful. And, ironically, I find blogs that function as gratitude journals boring to read - probably because they are just an elaborate list.
This blog post is the result of me questioning my apparent lack of thankfulness since I don't write lists, nor do I end my day by meditating over all the good things that have happened or by visioning tomorrow's blessings. And yet I have a good life, few worries, and the sense to appreciate the good in my life and around me any time of day. So I wondered what was the difference between me and the list-makers.
My answer is in the approach and the mentality behind it. In my experience, gratitude is very similar to living in the moment, which means being able to enjoy the here and now and appreciate it. True gratitude is not about lists or even about being good. True gratitude is about perspective. It's about understanding what is important in life, in your life. It's about the big picture. Details to be happy about should function as reminders of that fact, not as a goal in themselves. Let me quote Eric Butterworth again:
[I]t doesn't make any difference to God whether you thank Him or not. But it makes a lot of difference to you. … [G]ratitude is not for God. You are not obligated to thank God for your life, for your job, for your prosperity. However, giving thanks is an important state of your consciousness which keeps you in an awareness of oneness with divine flow. When you understand this you see that a grateful heart does not need something to be grateful for. One can be grateful with the same spontaneity as being happy. It simply flows forth from within and becomes a causative energy."
Butterworth then goes on to explain a statement of Paul's: "In all things give thanks." [Corinth. 12:1) However, Paul doesn't say "For all things give thanks", Butterworth points out. That wording would mean being grateful for everything, including your problems. Again, it's not about making a list; it's about attitude:
What Paul does say is "in all things give thanks."[1] In other words, despite the problems of lack, or even because of them, the need is to get yourself recentered in the awareness of the ever-presence of substance [i.e. abundance]. And the most effective way to accomplish this is by thanksgiving. He is stressing the importance of the grateful heart, not simply an expression of gratiude for things, but a heart that is grateful (full of greatness)."
The heart that is grateful runs on automatic, pulling in more good feelings and therefore more good without a second thought on your part. It's far better than a list!
[1] 1 Thessalonians 5:18
April 14, 2009
Finding God in the next person you meet - Part 2
Two years ago, I wrote a post about my exploration of Mahatma Gandhi's quote, "If you don't find God in the next person you meet, it is a waste of time looking for him further."
I haven't been exploring that concept lately, but today decided to try again. As before, I added to my affirmative set-up for the day with a slight change in wording: "…and teach me to find God in everyone I meet today."
Now, I didn't have the exact same experience as the first time I tried it, but I did end up having a lovely day. I found myself observing how pleasant other people were. I noticed I was more forthcoming and helpful. Observing the crazy hair-do of a store clerk made me only wonder how the cut was done, not whether or not it was attractive; in other words, I did not judge. The best part about this business about finding God is that it always removes or dampens that side of me that is critical, cynical, stand-offish, selfish. I have to say that I've enjoyed who I was today and I want to experience it again.
God may very well be teaching me to find God in myself.
I haven't been exploring that concept lately, but today decided to try again. As before, I added to my affirmative set-up for the day with a slight change in wording: "…and teach me to find God in everyone I meet today."
Now, I didn't have the exact same experience as the first time I tried it, but I did end up having a lovely day. I found myself observing how pleasant other people were. I noticed I was more forthcoming and helpful. Observing the crazy hair-do of a store clerk made me only wonder how the cut was done, not whether or not it was attractive; in other words, I did not judge. The best part about this business about finding God is that it always removes or dampens that side of me that is critical, cynical, stand-offish, selfish. I have to say that I've enjoyed who I was today and I want to experience it again.
God may very well be teaching me to find God in myself.
March 19, 2009
Good questions
I enjoy Oprah's Soul Series radio podcasts and have just listened to her interview with actor Rainn Wilson.
At one point during the interview, Rainn gave a good list of "life's big questions", and I feel like trying to answer them:
What does your soul look like? I love Oprah's answer in the interview: "My soul […] looks like everybody I see." As for me, I find I am stumped by the question. It leads me to another question: Why does my soul have to look like anything? But you know, Oprah's answer is a good one because it echoes the truth that the world that we experience is a reflection of who we are. But the soul is beyond our everyday lives and our bodies; it is who we are when we aren't humans, inhabiting these bodies. It is what keeps us alive, even when mind and body fail us. It is the spiritual equivalent of a heart beat. And that has lead me to my answer: My soul looks like a breath.
What do you miss most about being five years old? During the interview it seemed the question was really about what do you miss about being a child, which was a bit of a relief for me because I can't remember what it was like to be five years old. Rainn's answer was that he missed not being jaded. I don't feel jaded, though I can have moments where I feel like saying "whatever" in the same world-weary tone the young use. But that isn't how I really feel about the world. I can still be awestruck by the world around me. Take today for instance: I was fascinated by a moth resting on the wall of my building and blew on it to see if it would react. My breath made one of its wings ripple a bit. I wasn't expecting that. A moment of absolute wonder. So I don't miss having the mind-set of a child. What I do miss about being that age is being small enough to crawl into someone's lap and be held there. I miss sitting on someone's lap.
If you could ask God one question, what would it be? Oprah responded with "Why?" as in "Why are we here?" which turned out to be Rainn's last Big Question, so I'll answer that first:
Why are we here? Rainn's faith (baha'i) states that we are here to be of service but also to prepare for our spiritual life. The analogy was just as a baby in a womb is growing limbs and eyes and ears in order to function in this physical world, we are growing in spiritual ways in order to function as spirit. We are learning compassion and service and reverence for life. I have read many similar answers to that question so I wouldn't ask it, myself. Simply put, we're here to experience God and God's creation up close and personal through the material.
So back to that one question I'd ask God: I'd ask in what way I am like God. I would ask that question because I think the answer would teach me about the nature of God - and therefore my own nature. In fact, I think I will ask that question, because I am very curious about the answer.
Later in the interview, Oprah asked a thought-provoking question of her own: What do you want your life to represent? In your encounters with everyone, what do you want the message of your life to be? Shortened down to:
What is the message of your life? Oh, wow… Who thinks of that? Rainn hadn't but part of his answer was that he wants to have a great time and be living in God's will at the same time. He wanted to merge having a kick-ass time with the music turned up loud while serving God which is also the same as serving humanity. Oprah was thrilled by his answer. Her own goal this year is to be more in that space where God is, but while still having a good time. Their answers suggest to me that they think goofing around, laughing, cranking up the stereo and generally having fun seems counter to being spiritual. I, however, do not believe that one is opposite of the other. Quite the opposite: Delight and joy and living in the moment are spiritual qualities. When you are completely happy, you are in divine space. Granted, people like Eckhart Tolle come across as very calm and even-tempered and unruffled and many of us associate that kind of demeanor with spirituality. We expect being spiritual to be like living in a monastery: Quiet, contemplative, calm, low-key and patient. But this actually runs a bit counter to Rainn's earlier statement about a tenet of the baha'i faith: Creativity is akin to prayer. Art is communicating with God. I would imagine so is the appreciation of art.
Speaking of which, that reminds me of an experience I had in a Norwegian church during a Christmas mass at about age 10 (and I may have told this story before): A choir of 7th graders sang two very beautiful hymns very beautifully. When they were done, the congregation let out a collective sigh of appreciation. I lifted my hands, ready to applaud but noticed that no one else did. The minister got up on his pulpit and said, "Wasn't that absolutely lovely?" and the congregation answered with a heartfelt "Yes!" The minister then said, "I'd give them a round of applause if we weren't in God's house." At those words, a door shut inside me. If God cannot allow one group of people to show their genuine appreciation of another group of people, then I have no use for that god. That shut door led me to search for other spiritual truths and other spiritualities, and several years later, I learned that God would indeed want us to show appreciation for each other; joy is a divine emotion. Later, the Norwegian church loosened up and now allows applause, but I no longer attend.
Towards the very end of the interview, Oprah told of the time she was asked the question, "What do you know for sure?" She was so stumped by it, it stayed on her mind for days, and was the direct reason her column in her magazine "O" has that question as its title. I once thought about that question. It morphed into "Why do I know what I know?" at one point. I decided that what my head was full of opinions, impressions and personal experience. That the so-called facts in my head, placed there by family and school, were second-hand information. I actually had no way of verifying the truth of them (not even 2 plus 2 equalling 4. In math, you can get it equal 5, if you want). History, language, math, physics, politics - only with deep study of these subjects could I hope to verify what I know about them, and until that happens, I have no choice but to lump my entire education in with the other fuzzies of opinions, experiences and impressions. So what do I know? I know that God answers my prayers, because it keeps happening. I know my family loves me because I have evidence of that. And that's what I know. Those two things. Everything else is subject to change based on the next sound-bite that comes my way.
Finally, a last question from the podcast: What absolutely delights you? Ideally, I think this question should be answered with a very long list. The best thing to experience is delight in many things, big and small, every day. My current delights are offering (after a long absence) a new post on this blog, the podcast I just listened to, been inspired by and have quoted from, and the sun brightening the walls of my living room.
Rainn Wilson was interviewed in connection with his new website for discussing the Big Questions: SoulPancake.com/
At one point during the interview, Rainn gave a good list of "life's big questions", and I feel like trying to answer them:
What does your soul look like? I love Oprah's answer in the interview: "My soul […] looks like everybody I see." As for me, I find I am stumped by the question. It leads me to another question: Why does my soul have to look like anything? But you know, Oprah's answer is a good one because it echoes the truth that the world that we experience is a reflection of who we are. But the soul is beyond our everyday lives and our bodies; it is who we are when we aren't humans, inhabiting these bodies. It is what keeps us alive, even when mind and body fail us. It is the spiritual equivalent of a heart beat. And that has lead me to my answer: My soul looks like a breath.
What do you miss most about being five years old? During the interview it seemed the question was really about what do you miss about being a child, which was a bit of a relief for me because I can't remember what it was like to be five years old. Rainn's answer was that he missed not being jaded. I don't feel jaded, though I can have moments where I feel like saying "whatever" in the same world-weary tone the young use. But that isn't how I really feel about the world. I can still be awestruck by the world around me. Take today for instance: I was fascinated by a moth resting on the wall of my building and blew on it to see if it would react. My breath made one of its wings ripple a bit. I wasn't expecting that. A moment of absolute wonder. So I don't miss having the mind-set of a child. What I do miss about being that age is being small enough to crawl into someone's lap and be held there. I miss sitting on someone's lap.
If you could ask God one question, what would it be? Oprah responded with "Why?" as in "Why are we here?" which turned out to be Rainn's last Big Question, so I'll answer that first:
Why are we here? Rainn's faith (baha'i) states that we are here to be of service but also to prepare for our spiritual life. The analogy was just as a baby in a womb is growing limbs and eyes and ears in order to function in this physical world, we are growing in spiritual ways in order to function as spirit. We are learning compassion and service and reverence for life. I have read many similar answers to that question so I wouldn't ask it, myself. Simply put, we're here to experience God and God's creation up close and personal through the material.
So back to that one question I'd ask God: I'd ask in what way I am like God. I would ask that question because I think the answer would teach me about the nature of God - and therefore my own nature. In fact, I think I will ask that question, because I am very curious about the answer.
Later in the interview, Oprah asked a thought-provoking question of her own: What do you want your life to represent? In your encounters with everyone, what do you want the message of your life to be? Shortened down to:
What is the message of your life? Oh, wow… Who thinks of that? Rainn hadn't but part of his answer was that he wants to have a great time and be living in God's will at the same time. He wanted to merge having a kick-ass time with the music turned up loud while serving God which is also the same as serving humanity. Oprah was thrilled by his answer. Her own goal this year is to be more in that space where God is, but while still having a good time. Their answers suggest to me that they think goofing around, laughing, cranking up the stereo and generally having fun seems counter to being spiritual. I, however, do not believe that one is opposite of the other. Quite the opposite: Delight and joy and living in the moment are spiritual qualities. When you are completely happy, you are in divine space. Granted, people like Eckhart Tolle come across as very calm and even-tempered and unruffled and many of us associate that kind of demeanor with spirituality. We expect being spiritual to be like living in a monastery: Quiet, contemplative, calm, low-key and patient. But this actually runs a bit counter to Rainn's earlier statement about a tenet of the baha'i faith: Creativity is akin to prayer. Art is communicating with God. I would imagine so is the appreciation of art.
Speaking of which, that reminds me of an experience I had in a Norwegian church during a Christmas mass at about age 10 (and I may have told this story before): A choir of 7th graders sang two very beautiful hymns very beautifully. When they were done, the congregation let out a collective sigh of appreciation. I lifted my hands, ready to applaud but noticed that no one else did. The minister got up on his pulpit and said, "Wasn't that absolutely lovely?" and the congregation answered with a heartfelt "Yes!" The minister then said, "I'd give them a round of applause if we weren't in God's house." At those words, a door shut inside me. If God cannot allow one group of people to show their genuine appreciation of another group of people, then I have no use for that god. That shut door led me to search for other spiritual truths and other spiritualities, and several years later, I learned that God would indeed want us to show appreciation for each other; joy is a divine emotion. Later, the Norwegian church loosened up and now allows applause, but I no longer attend.
Towards the very end of the interview, Oprah told of the time she was asked the question, "What do you know for sure?" She was so stumped by it, it stayed on her mind for days, and was the direct reason her column in her magazine "O" has that question as its title. I once thought about that question. It morphed into "Why do I know what I know?" at one point. I decided that what my head was full of opinions, impressions and personal experience. That the so-called facts in my head, placed there by family and school, were second-hand information. I actually had no way of verifying the truth of them (not even 2 plus 2 equalling 4. In math, you can get it equal 5, if you want). History, language, math, physics, politics - only with deep study of these subjects could I hope to verify what I know about them, and until that happens, I have no choice but to lump my entire education in with the other fuzzies of opinions, experiences and impressions. So what do I know? I know that God answers my prayers, because it keeps happening. I know my family loves me because I have evidence of that. And that's what I know. Those two things. Everything else is subject to change based on the next sound-bite that comes my way.
Finally, a last question from the podcast: What absolutely delights you? Ideally, I think this question should be answered with a very long list. The best thing to experience is delight in many things, big and small, every day. My current delights are offering (after a long absence) a new post on this blog, the podcast I just listened to, been inspired by and have quoted from, and the sun brightening the walls of my living room.
Rainn Wilson was interviewed in connection with his new website for discussing the Big Questions: SoulPancake.com/
July 6, 2008
Religionsdebatt: Trenger språk
Vel, jeg rotet meg inn på en religionsdebatt på news. Jeg hadde mye på hjertet, men valgte i stedet å poste noe av det her, i stedet for der.
Utgangspunktet er altså Richard Dawkins. Tilhengerne hans sier bl.a. at Dawkins forholder seg til rasjonelle vitenskapelige metoder. Jeg påstår at Dawkins ikke forholder seg til vitenskapelige metoder, ellers hadde han tatt høyde for all data ang. religion. Han har i stedet valgt å fokusere kun på ekstremistene innenfor religion. Og det er det jeg har problemer med å godta hva gjelder Dawkins' forskning.
Så til det jeg skrev som jeg fant ut passet like greit her:
USA har ingen statskirke, ergo ingen majoritetsreligion (om man ser bort fra kristendom som et hele). USA har langt flere små, uavhengige trossamfunn enn hva f.eks. Skandinavia har, og med det mener jeg trossamfunn som har medlemsliste, møtelokale, osv. Det gir langt større valgmulighet og det kan også være grunnen til at folk som er lei vanlig kristendom ikke må søke ateismen, slik jeg har inntrykk av at man gjør i Norge, for frikirkene i Norge har en tendens til å være til høyre for statskirken. USAs minoritetsreligionene er heller ikke nødvendigvis erkekonservative eller isolasjonistiske; de som oppfører seg normalt havner ikke i media.
Det bør nevnes at republikanernes slagside mot erkekonservativ kristendom er et relativt nytt fenomen som opptrådte begrenset og isolert før 70-tallet. Før det var det typisk republikansk å passe på skillet mellom stat og kirke og, enda viktigere, stat og individ. Dagens republikanske parti har kun navnet felles med partiets historie (men går vi langt nok tilbake, får vi slavefrigjøreren Abraham Lincoln som republikaner (og ateist), så partiet har skiftet ham flere ganger).
Likevel er det langt mer religionsaksept i USA enn i Norge. I USA har det vært vanligere å fortelle folk at man har en gudstro enn å tie om det; der borte spør de gjerne hvilken. I Norge blir man ikke spurt; det antas at man er kristen. Det vises ingen nysgjerrighet, og det vises liten vilje til dialog og ønske om å forstå hvis det skulle vise seg at man er en sånn "overtroisk" en. Dette i seg selv går imot den vitenskapelige metode, så her kan det ikke være rasjonalitet som styrer (noe ateistene liker å påstå). Jeg tror snarere at nordmenn ikke har for vane å diskutere slike ting (jeg vil tro at kirkens historiske makt over individet og manglende aksept for dem som ville stå utenfor har mye av skylden). Resultatet, har jeg observert, er at nordmenn er noe fattige hva gjelder religiøse begreper, dvs. de mangler et språk som tillater en trosfilosofisk diskusjon mellom lekfolk. De som lefler med new age o.l. har fått et språk, men den er ikke blitt en del av andre nordmenns hverdag og passer ikke alltid inn med tradisjonelle begreper. Som et eksempel viser jeg til oversettelsen av romanen "Illusions: The Story of a Reluctant Messiah". Norsk tittel: "Illusjoner - Kristus flyr igjen". Jesus Kristus var aldri nevnt i boken, men jeg lurer på om nordmenn er så kjent med begrepet "kristus" at de kan løsrive det fra Jesus; jeg vet at jeg selv ikke gjorde det da jeg først hørte tittelen (jeg skylder på norsk skolegang med kristendomsundervisning og den lille katekisme). "Kristus" og "messias" betyr begge "den utvalgte" så tittelen er ikke så på jordet (for å si det sånn) som jeg først trodde.
Noe annet som kan ta livet av en god diskusjon er å hele tiden møte kommentarer som "irrasjonell, idiotisk, overtroisk" i stedet for respekt, toleranse og nysgjerrighet (og fra de erkeomvendte, begreper som synd, hedensk, og blasfemisk). Man blir øyeblikket tiet (eller enda verre: hånet) ihjel. Da er det ikke rart det er lett å anta at de fleste nordmenn som ikke går med kors rundt halsen er ateister (slik jeg har trodd). Dog skinner det igjennom også i norsk statistikk at gud er en del av livet for minst halvparten av nordmennene; de snakker bare ikke om det. Det finnes ingenting "vitenskaplig" (eller nestekjærlig) over å møte andre menneskers tro med hovmod - tvert imot. En ekte forsker må holde sinnet åpent og kan ikke tillate seg fordommer.
Det er ikke all religion som er sunn, men det samme kan man si om mat, ekteskap og politikk. Vi kan ikke avskaffe alt sammen bare fordi enkelte velger det ekstreme eller skadelige.
Jeg skulle ønske at religionsdebatten i Norge kunne stige noen hakk og samtidig få noen flere ben å stå på. Det er mer enn én måte å nærme seg temaene gud, tro, moral, livssyn og menneskesyn på, enn kun gjennom luthersk-evangelisme eller human-etikk. Det er ikke et enten-eller, men et både-og-samt. Det er store begreper og store ting, og jeg tror vi ville ha godt av å løfte blikket og utvide horisonten vi ser på.
Utgangspunktet er altså Richard Dawkins. Tilhengerne hans sier bl.a. at Dawkins forholder seg til rasjonelle vitenskapelige metoder. Jeg påstår at Dawkins ikke forholder seg til vitenskapelige metoder, ellers hadde han tatt høyde for all data ang. religion. Han har i stedet valgt å fokusere kun på ekstremistene innenfor religion. Og det er det jeg har problemer med å godta hva gjelder Dawkins' forskning.
Så til det jeg skrev som jeg fant ut passet like greit her:
USA har ingen statskirke, ergo ingen majoritetsreligion (om man ser bort fra kristendom som et hele). USA har langt flere små, uavhengige trossamfunn enn hva f.eks. Skandinavia har, og med det mener jeg trossamfunn som har medlemsliste, møtelokale, osv. Det gir langt større valgmulighet og det kan også være grunnen til at folk som er lei vanlig kristendom ikke må søke ateismen, slik jeg har inntrykk av at man gjør i Norge, for frikirkene i Norge har en tendens til å være til høyre for statskirken. USAs minoritetsreligionene er heller ikke nødvendigvis erkekonservative eller isolasjonistiske; de som oppfører seg normalt havner ikke i media.
Det bør nevnes at republikanernes slagside mot erkekonservativ kristendom er et relativt nytt fenomen som opptrådte begrenset og isolert før 70-tallet. Før det var det typisk republikansk å passe på skillet mellom stat og kirke og, enda viktigere, stat og individ. Dagens republikanske parti har kun navnet felles med partiets historie (men går vi langt nok tilbake, får vi slavefrigjøreren Abraham Lincoln som republikaner (og ateist), så partiet har skiftet ham flere ganger).
Likevel er det langt mer religionsaksept i USA enn i Norge. I USA har det vært vanligere å fortelle folk at man har en gudstro enn å tie om det; der borte spør de gjerne hvilken. I Norge blir man ikke spurt; det antas at man er kristen. Det vises ingen nysgjerrighet, og det vises liten vilje til dialog og ønske om å forstå hvis det skulle vise seg at man er en sånn "overtroisk" en. Dette i seg selv går imot den vitenskapelige metode, så her kan det ikke være rasjonalitet som styrer (noe ateistene liker å påstå). Jeg tror snarere at nordmenn ikke har for vane å diskutere slike ting (jeg vil tro at kirkens historiske makt over individet og manglende aksept for dem som ville stå utenfor har mye av skylden). Resultatet, har jeg observert, er at nordmenn er noe fattige hva gjelder religiøse begreper, dvs. de mangler et språk som tillater en trosfilosofisk diskusjon mellom lekfolk. De som lefler med new age o.l. har fått et språk, men den er ikke blitt en del av andre nordmenns hverdag og passer ikke alltid inn med tradisjonelle begreper. Som et eksempel viser jeg til oversettelsen av romanen "Illusions: The Story of a Reluctant Messiah". Norsk tittel: "Illusjoner - Kristus flyr igjen". Jesus Kristus var aldri nevnt i boken, men jeg lurer på om nordmenn er så kjent med begrepet "kristus" at de kan løsrive det fra Jesus; jeg vet at jeg selv ikke gjorde det da jeg først hørte tittelen (jeg skylder på norsk skolegang med kristendomsundervisning og den lille katekisme). "Kristus" og "messias" betyr begge "den utvalgte" så tittelen er ikke så på jordet (for å si det sånn) som jeg først trodde.
Noe annet som kan ta livet av en god diskusjon er å hele tiden møte kommentarer som "irrasjonell, idiotisk, overtroisk" i stedet for respekt, toleranse og nysgjerrighet (og fra de erkeomvendte, begreper som synd, hedensk, og blasfemisk). Man blir øyeblikket tiet (eller enda verre: hånet) ihjel. Da er det ikke rart det er lett å anta at de fleste nordmenn som ikke går med kors rundt halsen er ateister (slik jeg har trodd). Dog skinner det igjennom også i norsk statistikk at gud er en del av livet for minst halvparten av nordmennene; de snakker bare ikke om det. Det finnes ingenting "vitenskaplig" (eller nestekjærlig) over å møte andre menneskers tro med hovmod - tvert imot. En ekte forsker må holde sinnet åpent og kan ikke tillate seg fordommer.
Det er ikke all religion som er sunn, men det samme kan man si om mat, ekteskap og politikk. Vi kan ikke avskaffe alt sammen bare fordi enkelte velger det ekstreme eller skadelige.
Jeg skulle ønske at religionsdebatten i Norge kunne stige noen hakk og samtidig få noen flere ben å stå på. Det er mer enn én måte å nærme seg temaene gud, tro, moral, livssyn og menneskesyn på, enn kun gjennom luthersk-evangelisme eller human-etikk. Det er ikke et enten-eller, men et både-og-samt. Det er store begreper og store ting, og jeg tror vi ville ha godt av å løfte blikket og utvide horisonten vi ser på.
June 22, 2008
Books you both read and write in
It's been a long time since I last had a book I wrote in. Oprah and my hairdresser talking about notes and Post-its littering their Eckhart Tolle books made me think about the last time I had a book that so delighted me or inspired me that I underlined whole passages.
I do have several books that have umpteen bookmarks in them (most are by Joseph Murphy), a bread crumb trail I can follow back to the passages that meant most to me. But I no longer write in my own books. That's because I leant one of my inspiring books to a classmate who complained about how distracting my scribbles in the margin were. I shouldn't do that, she said. So I stopped.
But now that I think back, and when I think about the unexpected doorway that discovering other people's notes in books is, why should someone else dictate what I do to my own books? I guess I could lend them with the warning that they're getting more than just the author's thoughts or emphasis.
What I really want, is a book that inspires me to underline passages, mark things with a yellow highlighter, and litter with Post-its to help relocate the best pages. And I want the freedom to do so. I have finally purchased Eckhart Tolle's book "A New Earth" and will re-listen to/re-watch the podcasts and maybe have my own notes to contribute.
It's not about destroying property. It's about enthusiasm. It's about involvement. About being so enthusiastic about something in a book, so involved in it, that you don't want to lose it or forget it, so you leave behind your own impression on the book.
I do have several books that have umpteen bookmarks in them (most are by Joseph Murphy), a bread crumb trail I can follow back to the passages that meant most to me. But I no longer write in my own books. That's because I leant one of my inspiring books to a classmate who complained about how distracting my scribbles in the margin were. I shouldn't do that, she said. So I stopped.
But now that I think back, and when I think about the unexpected doorway that discovering other people's notes in books is, why should someone else dictate what I do to my own books? I guess I could lend them with the warning that they're getting more than just the author's thoughts or emphasis.
What I really want, is a book that inspires me to underline passages, mark things with a yellow highlighter, and litter with Post-its to help relocate the best pages. And I want the freedom to do so. I have finally purchased Eckhart Tolle's book "A New Earth" and will re-listen to/re-watch the podcasts and maybe have my own notes to contribute.
It's not about destroying property. It's about enthusiasm. It's about involvement. About being so enthusiastic about something in a book, so involved in it, that you don't want to lose it or forget it, so you leave behind your own impression on the book.
June 1, 2008
How to uncover your wholeness
Lately, all my reading and listening to the webcasts from Oprah's shows on "A New Earth" with Eckhart Tolle, keeps pointing out that we are essentially whole. The body is essentially healthy; disease is layered on top of the health. Our souls are also well, seeming not to be only because of a clutter of pain and fear layered on top. And all my reading and listening says that if you stop dwelling on the thoughts of pain and fear, you will automatically become whole - or more correctly, rediscover your wholeness. The habitual backdrop of pain and fear in your thinking can be stopped using several methods, but they all have one similarity: Replace an undesirable thought with a better one.
When I attended a local course on the Law of Attraction, the habitual bad thoughts were identified as those that often contain the word "not". When you start speaking in negatives - "I can't lose weight" or "I don't like my job" - the way to take control is to stop and ask yourself what you do want. It's positive, proactive, empowering and calming to reframe your thoughts like that, as well as helping you become aware of what you'd rather have in life.
Eckhart Tolle says that the way to deal with habitual bad thinking and resultant emotional reactions - not by repressing them, but by acknowledging them and becoming aware of their triggers. That last means trying to notice when you have an emotional reaction that is too big or strong for the situation that provoked it. Then you've identified a pain that is interfering with your wholeness. Observe it and try to feel what it has to say to you, then let it move on. Let yourself move on. Tolle encourages us to focus on staying in the present moment, in the now. When you do, it's impossible to worry.
Another technique, which I've used the most, is to use affirmations. In one sense, an affirmation is the way to answer the question "What do I want?" By wording yourself using a positive, affirmative, present-tense sentence whenever the undesirable thought or reaction occurs, you can reprogram your reaction. Better still is to use the affirmation pro-actively, before the situation that can trigger a pain reaction is likely to happen.
With all of the above, you can stop and take a deep breath to give yourself a moment to help you center yourself. You can use this breath both to help you become more aware and to avert the negativity.
All of the above methods get easier with practice. The speed with which you will recognize when you are slipping into an automatic and negative reaction will be quicker and quicker as you practice on becoming more aware. It takes 3-4 weeks to get a new habit, and the nice thing about a habit like this is the feeling you get from dedicating several minutes a day (and more than once a day, if you want) to thinking good thoughts about yourself and your wants. It imparts both peace and joy.
When I attended a local course on the Law of Attraction, the habitual bad thoughts were identified as those that often contain the word "not". When you start speaking in negatives - "I can't lose weight" or "I don't like my job" - the way to take control is to stop and ask yourself what you do want. It's positive, proactive, empowering and calming to reframe your thoughts like that, as well as helping you become aware of what you'd rather have in life.
Eckhart Tolle says that the way to deal with habitual bad thinking and resultant emotional reactions - not by repressing them, but by acknowledging them and becoming aware of their triggers. That last means trying to notice when you have an emotional reaction that is too big or strong for the situation that provoked it. Then you've identified a pain that is interfering with your wholeness. Observe it and try to feel what it has to say to you, then let it move on. Let yourself move on. Tolle encourages us to focus on staying in the present moment, in the now. When you do, it's impossible to worry.
Another technique, which I've used the most, is to use affirmations. In one sense, an affirmation is the way to answer the question "What do I want?" By wording yourself using a positive, affirmative, present-tense sentence whenever the undesirable thought or reaction occurs, you can reprogram your reaction. Better still is to use the affirmation pro-actively, before the situation that can trigger a pain reaction is likely to happen.
With all of the above, you can stop and take a deep breath to give yourself a moment to help you center yourself. You can use this breath both to help you become more aware and to avert the negativity.
All of the above methods get easier with practice. The speed with which you will recognize when you are slipping into an automatic and negative reaction will be quicker and quicker as you practice on becoming more aware. It takes 3-4 weeks to get a new habit, and the nice thing about a habit like this is the feeling you get from dedicating several minutes a day (and more than once a day, if you want) to thinking good thoughts about yourself and your wants. It imparts both peace and joy.
May 19, 2008
Current state not necessarily future state
Talking about digestion is something old people do. So let me talk about my digestion now and get it over and done with because I really don't want to be having this conversation when I'm old.
I am currently reading a book, "Hidden power for human problems" by Frederick Bailes. I hadn't heard of Bailes until quite recently, when I was reading about Thomas Troward. (I wander with Google like other people backpack foreign countries.) So I ordered a book, and am enjoying it.
Bailes claims that there are some basic attitudes that give us trouble, that trip us up. He also claims that it doesn't take 50 years to undo a 50-year-old habit. One of his examples involves a man with an ulcer.
I am currently reading a book, "Hidden power for human problems" by Frederick Bailes. I hadn't heard of Bailes until quite recently, when I was reading about Thomas Troward. (I wander with Google like other people backpack foreign countries.) So I ordered a book, and am enjoying it.
Bailes claims that there are some basic attitudes that give us trouble, that trip us up. He also claims that it doesn't take 50 years to undo a 50-year-old habit. One of his examples involves a man with an ulcer.
I have been to the doctor's today. I described my grab-bag of symptoms, stating that I've always had sluggish digestion, ever since childhood. The doctor told me to avoid milk products, gluten, potatoes and coffee, and prescribed ranitidine. I got tired of constantly being aware of my insides because something was always aching, twinging or even having sharp pains. I said to my doctor, "I've had bad digestion for 40 years. Ya think I can avoid having it for another 40?" He smiled like Mona Lisa (he always smiles like that) and non-committedly said anything was possible.
Well, anything is. An ulcer is possible. A change of mind - quite literally - and a willingness to stop identifying with a 40-year-old habit is possible. That last is also a far more desirable path.
Bailes has a whole chapter on the man with an ulcer. I will go back and re-read. It is hard to convince oneself that at the core of everything is perfection. I read somewhere that disease is something that layers itself on top of health. So, all you have to do is peel away the disease. I find that thought rather cheering.
Just to be sure, the doctor had me take a blood test, and will check my thyroid values, and he also wants some stool tests. The nurse handed me the test kit. "You take one test per day." I asked her how I was going to do one per day, if I didn't go more than once per week. Not a problem; the tests are sealed in such a way that they'll keep, she explained. (They think of everything.) I then complained about the poster on the wall. That it would be nice with a sleeker man to be distracted by than the pot-bellied one encouraging patients to lose weight. Especially since the blood test kind of hurt.
So what's next is to follow doctor's orders, and keep reading Bailes. Somewhere inside me there is a belief that is ruining my enjoyment of food. I'm not having that. I'm not going to spend the next 40 years like the last. Everything I read says that the natural state of a body, regardless of age, is health, and that attitude has a lot to say about how well one stays in this natural state. So many beliefs, including the ones of an entire society (consider the discussion about health care and how most folks feel it is necessary), influence what one expects out of health and aging and life in general. I do not want to become medicalized. I'd rather come to an understanding of this wonderful physical perfection that is my birthright and let it express itself fully.
This or something better is now manifesting in my life for me.
(Also posted in my other blog.)
March 30, 2008
Do you need fear?
There's a movie called "Esoteric Agenda" making the rounds. I actually watched the full 126 minutes this movie lasts, and it is, in my opinion, a shining example of how erroneously we can connect the dots and see patterns where there are none, inventing monsters under the bed with no other evidence than an absence of light there. I'm basically saying, don't watch it.
So why am I even mentioning this? Because the movie, though it has a feel-good "love is the answer" ending, spends an hour and 45 minutes trying to convince you that "they" are out to get you. No, really. Using the end of the Mayan calendar, some dubious explanations for the word Israel and an even more dubious correlation drawn between paganism and socialism, with the Bush family geneology thrown in - just for starters! - the movie tries to convince the viewer that there is a plot to rid the planet of 5.95 billion of its 6 billion humans. Somebody wants you to starve to death, or contract a curable disease but get no medicine, or be the victim of yet another senseless war, says the movie.
I actually enjoy Eric von Däniken's far-out ideas. I find some conspiracy theories so fascinating that I wish they were true (like the one the Da Vinci code is based on, or any of the Indiana Jones movies).
This movie does not present any facts. It presents theories that can not be independently verified and offers connections between events or people that don't exist. It rehashes urban myths and New Age wishful thinking (like the 100th monkey story). However, it's one thing to fantasize about where the ark of the covenant ended up; it's something else entirely to weave a story with the intention of frightening people.
And that is my concern. There are plenty of things to be afraid of, from Moslem terrorists to gene manipulated food to the current economic situation in the US.
All of this the movie grabs onto, and for the claimed 87 per cent of the population who do not think for themselves this can lead to an even greater distrust of governments, of the decision-making process both personal, national and global, and of the world at large itself.
It makes me wonder what the purpose is.
If life is resilient, if the only constant is change, and we have survived any matter of problems over the millennia, if the nature of God is inherently good and One, why be afraid?
What purpose does fear have?
I can see only one: To tell you to rethink a situation.
But how much fear is necessary to reevaluate a situation, to reconsider a possible danger? And is fear necessary at all to make decisions about which politician to vote for or whether or not children in a foreign country should be given free food?
Can any message of unity, of a universal oneness, be "sold" without the use of scare tactics?
I believe so, but I also understand that we do tend to believe the statistics, and worry, and remind ourselves (partly thanks to our own history books) that bad things do happen.
But they don't happen all that much. The majority of what we experience is generally not bad.
So I ask you: Do you need fear? Do you need fear in order make positive changes in your life? Do you need fear to care about your health? Do you need fear in order to believe in God? Do you need fear to take action to improve your community? Do you vote for the politician who gets your attention by scaring you? Do you stay in a job or a marriage because it scares you not to? Are your decisions in life made to lessen your fears?
Try this instead: Ask yourself, what would love do? Ask yourself if you loved yourself, or your neighbor or town or country, what would you do?
Try seeing the world as a safe place, only waiting for improvement, not a dangerous place, only waiting for some way to fight back.
How do these thoughts make you feel?
How does the idea of being able to act in and on the world from a feeling of love and safety make you feel about being here on Earth?
I'm sure it makes you feel better than thinking about what scares you.
The point that even "Esoteric Agenda" makes is that you always have choice: Love or fear. Which do you choose to habitually hold in your mind? Fear makes you give away your power; love helps you find it. If you to have real choice, to have real freedom, to have real self-empowerment, love is the key. Focusing on the one thing that always supports life is the best way to address confusion and fear. Love is the answer.
Links:
Slade's review
Sravana's review
So why am I even mentioning this? Because the movie, though it has a feel-good "love is the answer" ending, spends an hour and 45 minutes trying to convince you that "they" are out to get you. No, really. Using the end of the Mayan calendar, some dubious explanations for the word Israel and an even more dubious correlation drawn between paganism and socialism, with the Bush family geneology thrown in - just for starters! - the movie tries to convince the viewer that there is a plot to rid the planet of 5.95 billion of its 6 billion humans. Somebody wants you to starve to death, or contract a curable disease but get no medicine, or be the victim of yet another senseless war, says the movie.
I actually enjoy Eric von Däniken's far-out ideas. I find some conspiracy theories so fascinating that I wish they were true (like the one the Da Vinci code is based on, or any of the Indiana Jones movies).
This movie does not present any facts. It presents theories that can not be independently verified and offers connections between events or people that don't exist. It rehashes urban myths and New Age wishful thinking (like the 100th monkey story). However, it's one thing to fantasize about where the ark of the covenant ended up; it's something else entirely to weave a story with the intention of frightening people.
And that is my concern. There are plenty of things to be afraid of, from Moslem terrorists to gene manipulated food to the current economic situation in the US.
All of this the movie grabs onto, and for the claimed 87 per cent of the population who do not think for themselves this can lead to an even greater distrust of governments, of the decision-making process both personal, national and global, and of the world at large itself.
It makes me wonder what the purpose is.
If life is resilient, if the only constant is change, and we have survived any matter of problems over the millennia, if the nature of God is inherently good and One, why be afraid?
What purpose does fear have?
I can see only one: To tell you to rethink a situation.
But how much fear is necessary to reevaluate a situation, to reconsider a possible danger? And is fear necessary at all to make decisions about which politician to vote for or whether or not children in a foreign country should be given free food?
Can any message of unity, of a universal oneness, be "sold" without the use of scare tactics?
I believe so, but I also understand that we do tend to believe the statistics, and worry, and remind ourselves (partly thanks to our own history books) that bad things do happen.
But they don't happen all that much. The majority of what we experience is generally not bad.
So I ask you: Do you need fear? Do you need fear in order make positive changes in your life? Do you need fear to care about your health? Do you need fear in order to believe in God? Do you need fear to take action to improve your community? Do you vote for the politician who gets your attention by scaring you? Do you stay in a job or a marriage because it scares you not to? Are your decisions in life made to lessen your fears?
Try this instead: Ask yourself, what would love do? Ask yourself if you loved yourself, or your neighbor or town or country, what would you do?
Try seeing the world as a safe place, only waiting for improvement, not a dangerous place, only waiting for some way to fight back.
How do these thoughts make you feel?
How does the idea of being able to act in and on the world from a feeling of love and safety make you feel about being here on Earth?
I'm sure it makes you feel better than thinking about what scares you.
The point that even "Esoteric Agenda" makes is that you always have choice: Love or fear. Which do you choose to habitually hold in your mind? Fear makes you give away your power; love helps you find it. If you to have real choice, to have real freedom, to have real self-empowerment, love is the key. Focusing on the one thing that always supports life is the best way to address confusion and fear. Love is the answer.
Links:
Slade's review
Sravana's review
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
