DON’T MEDITATE TO ‘GET’ SOMETHING!

‘Meditation is a state of mind which looks at everything with

complete attention, totally, not just parts of it.’ J. Krishnamurti.

I have a good friend (let’s call him Steve) who is a scientist---a physicist, to be exact. He taught physics in universities in Australia and Canada. Steve and his wife regularly attend meetings of my home fellowship. He is one of the most learned and scholarly persons I’ve ever known, but he finds it extremely difficult to meditate.

Yes, when it comes to our guided meditation, Steve seems either unable or unwilling to ‘let go’, even to the extent of closing his eyes and staying still for just a few seconds. He fidgets and constantly moves around in his chair and is clearly uncomfortable at the thought of any form of meditation, even meditation of the most naturalistic kind.

Perhaps the reason for Steve's 'resistance' is that, as a disciplined scientist, he always wants to know and control. he is also a skeptic, which goes with the territory, so to speak. A good thing, skepticism. Doubt, not faith, is the name of the game. Steve relies entirely upon facts and evidence, that is, on what he can see and know, and also on inferences and conclusions that can be drawn rationally from the available evidence. 

Now, I admire that, for I, too, am very much the empiricist. I, too, reject supernatural, occult and all other unobservable explanations of the otherwise observable conditions of existence. ‘The things that can be seen, heard and learned are what I prize most,’ wrote Heraclitus. True, very true, but meditation can indeed be ‘something’ that is seen, heard and learned.

Steve recently said to me, ‘I have trouble with mindfulness meditation.’ I say to him, ‘Steve, you do practise mindfulness all the time, but you don’t seem to realize it. Mindfulness is paying attention, on purpose. It is being aware, including being aware of your awareness---and even your unawareness. Mindfulness is doing one thing at a time, purposefully and knowingly---like when you're reading a scientific journal article which requires all of your focus, awareness and and attention. That is mindfulness, and you are engaged in a form of meditation more often than you think---even when you're driving your car or washing the dishes. You get my point, don’t you?’ Steve, ever the skeptic, begrudgingly answered, ‘Yes. I suppose I do.’

Many people have a terrible fear of ‘losing control’. Ironically, a lot of these people are already ‘out of control’ in that their lives are controlled by fears, phobias, addictions and compulsions that are seemingly beyond their personal or conscious control. Now, one thing meditation is not is this---it is not ‘mind control’ in the sense of subjugation, sublimation or suppression. Meditation is being choicelessly (that is, non-judgmentally) aware of what is.

In order to properly meditate you must go gently … and take it easy. More importantly, the ‘effort’ involved in meditation is of a relaxed albeit deliberate kind. It has been described as the ‘effort of no-effort.’ ‘Resist not’ is the important principle involved.

Back to Steve. I said to him, ‘When it comes to our group mindfulness, or your own practice of it, you will never lose control, go into some trance, or otherwise lose contact with external reality. At any time you can cease your meditation and go about your ordinary business.’ He seemed a bit happier, but I don’t think I have fully convinced him. He’s a hard case, but I love him. He is a man of integrity---and great intelligence. That may sound patronizing, but it’s damn true.

One more thing. We must never meditate to get something---not even peace of mind or happiness. If you meditate to get something, more often than not you will fail. If you want peace of mind or happiness you need to ‘let go’ of everything that is holding you back from enjoying peace of mind and happiness. The Buddha was right when he spoke of the need to eradicate the causes of our unhappiness in order to be happy. Listen to these nuggets of wisdom from the great Buddhist teacher Ajahn Chah [pictured right]:

‘Remember you don't meditate to “get” anything, but to get “rid” of things. We do it, not with desire, but with letting go. If you “want” anything, you won't find it.’

‘We practise to learn letting go, not to increase our holding on. Enlightenment appears when you stop wanting anything.’

Krishnamurti [pictured top left] made a similar point when he said, ‘Meditation is not a means to an end. It is both the means and the end.’

Letting go is never easy. All too often, we hold on to things, including negative emotions and states of mind, that are making and keeping us sick and unhappy. We get a perverse pleasure from being miserable.

Take charge---and let go.

RELATED POST

THE ‘PURPOSES’ OF MEDITATION

RELIGION WITHOUT SUPERNATURALISM

Can there be religion without supernaturalism and superstition? Of course. Surely you’ve heard of religious naturalism? Now, naturalism takes various forms including but not limited to cosmological naturalism, methodological naturalism, ethical naturalism, scientistic naturalism, social naturalism, and religious naturalism. I am only concerned with the latter here.

The American philosopher and theologian Jerome A Stone [pictured left] offers the following definition of religious naturalism:

Religious naturalism may be defined as the affirmation that there are one or more aspects of the world to which religious responses are appropriate.

Religious naturalism exists in its own right as a religious movement, and it also subsists in a number of the world’s religions including (most especially) Buddhism but even Judaism and Christianity. However, even in the case of those religions that are supernaturalistic in their orientation and thought forms, the natural world is by no means unimportant, and most religions in their earliest forms were naturalistic in orientation and thought form. Indeed, as David Suzuki has pointed out:

All religions explore the place of people in the natural and social worlds around them.  They provide explanations for mysteries such as death and disorder, and use myths and moral teachings to relate human and nonhuman spheres. The earliest forms of contemporary world religions, such as Hinduism, Christianity and Islam, presented an animated, integrated world similar to that of traditional worldviews.  As Lao Tzu puts it in the Tao Te Ching:

    

The virtue of the universe is wholeness,

It regards all things as equal.

But some of those world religions have shifted ground over the past centuries, supporting the development of a very different picture of reality and our place in it.

The prominent theologian James Luther Adams [pictured right] saw Jesus as a leading exponent of naturalistic religion, at least as regards his teachings and his methods of teaching. Despite the assertions of many in the mainstream churches, Jesus for the most part used a rational method of analogy---he always taught in parables, and taught nothing but parables---appealing to empirical experience self-evident to any Jew, gentile, or Samaritan. You may also recall that when the Scribes and Pharisees went to Jesus, asking that he show them a ‘sign’---that is, some miracle (whatever that word means)---so that they might be convinced he was a true prophet, Jesus said to them, ‘Only an evil, adulterous generation would demand a miraculous sign’ (Mt 16:4). 

Jesus left them and went away, but he made it clear that the only ‘miracle’ that can attest a prophet’s teachings to be true is the change---a change for good, that is---that the prophet makes in the hearts of his hearers. I could give you many other examples in the scriptures of where Jesus repudiated the proposition that a belief in the supernatural is necessary in order to attest to spiritual truth. The English poet and critic Matthew Arnold wrote,’ Suppose I could change the pen with which I write this into a pen-wiper, I should not make what I wrote any the truer or more convincing.’

Insofar as the Jewish scriptures are concerned, a Baptist minister, the Rev Geoffrey Thomas, has rightly noted:

                                                                                                

There were just three periods of miraculous activity during the Old Testament dispensation. There were virtually no wonders wrought by Abraham and the patriarchs, or the judges, nothing during the reign of David, in the period of Isaiah and Jeremiah, or at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. The first period of miracles was during the exodus from Egypt, and the second was under the prophesyings of Elijah and Elisha, and finally in the Old Testament during the time of Daniel in Babylon there were some extraordinary signs.

Even the prophecies contained in the Hebrew Bible were not really about fore-telling but about forth-telling, that is, speaking out on issues immediately at hand. Enough said.

For religious naturalists such as the cell biologist Ursula Goodenough [pictured left] and the philosopher Donald Crosby nature is both ultimate reality and a religiously ultimate object in and of itself.  In the words of Professor Crosby:

I regard nature as both ultimate reality and as religiously ultimate.  There is nothing beyond it, outside of it, or over against it that is needed to explain its origin, continuing existence, or irrepressible creativity. Nature itself, without a God, Goddess, gods, or animating personal spirits of any kind, is for me an appropriate and, indeed, the most appropriate focus of religious commitment and concern especially for our ecologically conscious times. Thus, I am neither a monotheist, a polytheist, a pantheist, a panentheist, nor an animist, and yet I claim profound religious value and meaning for the immanent, self-contained powers of nature admittedly impersonal though they be that produce, suffuse, and sustain us and all other forms of being.

Religious naturalists are not all a bunch of godless pagans or earth worshippers.  They may be ‘God people’ or ‘non-God people.’ As to the former, Professor Goodenough, who incidentally belongs to the latter, has written:

There are two flavors of God people: those whose God is natural and those whose God is supernatural. Certainly there are a lot of people within religious naturalism who have no problem with God language - God as love, God as evolution, God as process. People see God as part of nature and give God-attributes to the part of nature that they find most sacred. I encounter people like that all the time.

However, few modern religious naturalists would view nature itself as ‘God.’  Most religious naturalists don’t deify the universe. In his book The Humanist Way Edward L Ericson writes:

The philosophical and religious naturalist refuses to divert human idealism and effort to the vain and untestable attempt to account for the existence of reality as a whole by postulating some external ‘divine’ or ‘supernatural’ power that, as popular religious supernaturalism contends, must be propitiated and worshipped. The naturalist sees no ground for supposing such a being to exist, or for investing human resources in pursuit of a will-of-the-wisp so footless in logic or meaning.

Religious conservatives, even a few religious liberals, and many militant atheists object to claims by religious naturalists from time to time that the latter are ‘religious’ and have ‘religious faith,’ but the phenomenon of religious naturalism is nothing new. With its historical roots going as far back as Baruch Spinoza in the second half of the 17th century---not to mention its long association with and embodiment in various eastern religions---the phenomenon now known as religious naturalism has a long, well-established and, for the most part, distinguished history, particularly in the United States of America. Its ‘spokespersons’ include such notables as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Mordecai Kaplan, George Santayana, John Dewey, and Henry Nelson Wieman (who called his belief-system ‘naturalistic theism’). William James [pictured below], although not a religious naturalist in the strict sense, nevertheless favoured empirically-based naturalistic reinterpretations of supposedly supernaturalistic phenomena.

Naturalistic religious faith----faith being understood as living with courage, confidence, and hope---involves all of the key elements of a supernaturalistic religious faith, such as piety, awe, reverence, devotion, mystery and surrender, contains elements of both immanence and transcendence, and satisfies the tests of both ultimacy and intimacy.  Further, religious naturalism is and can genuinely claim to be concerned about what is truly sacred---life itself. Show me anything more wonderful than that!

Any attempt to define or otherwise understand religion that does not take into account the phenomenon of religious naturalism is bound to be inadequate not to mention downright misleading.

I mentioned the words ‘immanence’ and ‘transcendence’ above. Can those terms really apply to religious naturalism? I think they can. Donald Crosby sees immanence and transcendence as being the two things that permit appreciation or recognition of a thing being a religion, and he has demonstrated that religious naturalism satisfies both of those things. Its immanence can be found in its rejection of all notions of supernaturalism and its repudiation of all theories of intelligent design or underlying purpose, while its transcendence is three-fold: first, we human beings, as ‘creatures of nature,’ have the capacity for self-transcendence; secondly, there occur transformative events that transcendent our expectations and lie outside or beyond our conscious will or control; and, thirdly, there is the transcendence, both in time and space, of nature itself over human beings, together with our utter dependence upon nature for the continuance of our lives both physically and otherwise. 

I have often written that supernaturalism is the enemy of all true religion and all that is good and meaningful in it. There, I’ve just said it again.

RELATED POST

MINDFULNESS, SUPERNATURALISM, THEISM AND SPIRITUALITY

MINDFULNESS, SUPERNATURALISM, THEISM AND SPIRITUALITY

Mindfulness, whether of a Buddhist or non-Buddhist kind, does not depend for its efficacy upon any notions of supernaturalism or of a creator or interventionist God. In other words, mindfulness is entirely naturalistic and in that sense secular and non-religious (but not inherently anti-religious). I call it 'transreligious,' but that's another matter.

Naturalism and ‘supernaturalism’

For what it’s worth, my world view is entirely naturalistic and non-theistic. By ‘naturalistic’ I am referring to the rejection of any notion of there being different levels or orders of reality, irrespective of whether those levels or orders are higher and lower or otherwise of two or more kinds in some way co-existing or interpenetrating each other. By naturalistic I am also rejecting any appeal to so-called supernatural revelation or authority. By naturalistic I seek to desupernaturalize but at the same time remythologize those parts and aspects of traditional religion that are couched in supernatural terms, language and thought forms. (Years ago I read some of the writings of Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, and it changed my whole approach to religion and stance on life. Ditto the writings of Professor Samuel Angus.) 

I make no apologies for saying, or doing, any of the foregoing. If religion is to survive ansd have any meaning at all for future generations, then the choice is clear what we have to do---in the light of the discoveries of modern science, the damaged state of our planet, the divisive and tribal nature of much of traditional religion, and otherwise. Supernaturalism is the enemy of all true religion and all that is good and meaningful in it.

At the risk of stating the obvious, it is impossible to validate supernaturalism empirically. Why? Well, for a number of reasons, perhaps the main one being that supernaturalism---whatever that term actually means (assuming it can be given any intelligible meaning at all)---has no distinctive or even special empirical traits that would enable us to distinguish ‘it’ from naturalistic alternatives. In addition, despite the efforts of Christian apologists such as William Lane Craig (pictured below right), it is also impossible to validate supernaturalism philosophically. Why? Again, for a number of reasons, perhaps the main one being that any quality, trait or attribute that supposedly pertains to the purportedly supernatural that is asserted by proponents of belief in the supernatural to be ‘necessary’ to account for some naturalistic occurrence or event can always more reasonably be said to be attributable to the natural world itself or to be simply not necessary at all. 

I will have a bit more to say about the so-called supernatural later in this post. Suffice to say I have spent a fair bit of my life arguing against the idea of supernaturalism, and my PhD thesis sought to establish, among other things, that there can be real and meaningful religion without supernaturalism.

Non-theism

By ‘non-theistic’ I am referring to the rejection of all notions of traditional theism including the idea of a supernatural personal or super-personal being who, supposedly, is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving and everywhere present. (According to the Christian scriptures, this Being is said to have taken human form uniquely in the person of Jesus Christ, who, it is asserted, was both fully human as well as being divine.) I am, however, open to the idea of panentheism and what is known as predicate theology. I accept an amalgam of those ideas as a working hypothesis, but nothing more than that.

Allowing for such a worldview, what, then, is of ultimate importance or significance, assuming for the moment that there is anything that is! Reality, that’s what. What is reality? Well, reality is … what is … that is, life … that is, living things living out their livingness from one moment to the next. What could be more ‘ultimate’ than that? You see, if, as I think is the case, there is nothing over, beyond or outside of life itself (in the sense just described), and nothing against it or in any way in opposition to it, we must be dealing with something of supreme, indeed, ultimate importance, which transcends everything else in terms of importance and lasting value.

The ‘spiritual’

Now, the word view I have just described can, for the most part, be described and explained by reference to psychological mechanisms. I say ‘primarily’ because I take the view that there are some processes in the human psyche and go further---I did not say ‘beyond’---psychology as that term is ordinarily understood in Western psychology (but not Buddhist psychology). I refer to those processes as being ‘spiritual’ in nature.

Now, please understand that when I use the word ‘spiritual’ I am not referring to the so-called supernatural. Not at all. The word ‘spiritual’ is used, perhaps for want of a better word, to refer to those processes that cannot be described, or fully described, by a rational mind alone. Spirituality refers to non-physical and non-transient things such as faith, hope and charity as well as states of affairs or human consciousness which, going ‘beyond words’, are only partially (if at all) graspable by human concepts. We are talking about ‘things’ that cannot be seen but which are otherwise capable of being apprehended, if not fully understood. 

Here are some spiritual ideas. Perhaps the most important one, at least insofar as personal growth, transformation and recovery are concerned, is the idea that ‘self cannot change self.’ Then there’s the associated idea that only a ‘power-not-oneself’ can overcome the bondage of self. Even more fundamental is the idea that ‘self is an illusion.’ Traditional Western psychology has great problems with that idea. Indeed, the idea would appear to be inconsistent with the general thrust of Western psychology. 

Now, none of the ideas to which I have just referred, and which are the subject of many posts on this blog, require or depend upon any notions of ‘supernaturalism.’ Listen to these words from the late Australian Liberal Catholic bishop Lawrence W Burt (pictured left):

 
In a universe of LAW there can be no supernatural. There may be the super-physical, or super-normal, but there can be no super-natural. You cannot transcend Natural law, nor suspend it. [Original emphasis]

I don’t particularly like the words ‘super-physical’ and ‘super-normal,’ but I think I understand what the bishop is saying. I prefer the words ‘transnatural’ and ‘transrational’ [see below], but the important thing is that we need to eliminate the word ‘supernatural’ from our vocabulary. As I have said many times, it is simply impossible to conceive of there being any existence, or other order or level of reality, other than our ordinary ‘natural’ existence, that is, the way in which ordinary things exist in space and time. Any notion of there being different orders or levels of reality or truth is contrary to the very nature and possibility of discourse. It is unspeakable. Even the evangelical Anglican bishop and New Testament scholar N T Wright takes the view that the word 'supernatural' is highly problematic and dubious. Indeed, Wright has sought to avoid altogether notions of supernaturalism because he is so acutely aware of their inherent problems. He has written:

The great divide between the ‘natural’ and the ‘supernatural’, certainly in the way we use those words today, comes basically from the eighteenth century, bringing with it the whole debate about ‘miracles’.

Wright went on to say that anything that occurs or that is capable of occurring, whether perhaps under some conditions but not others, must be said to be ... natural! Even a so-called 'miracle' (not that I'm a believer in the latter, but that's another story).

The notion of a ‘higher power’ … or a ‘power-not-oneself’

Many people, especially those in 12-step programs, use the expression ‘higher power’ to refer to the ‘power-not-oneself’ that is invoked to relieve a person from the bondage of self. I personally dislike the term 'higher power' for two main reasons. First, because the term implies, if it doesn’t expressly necessitate, the existence of higher and lower levels or orders of reality---a concept which, as already mentioned, I find myself unable to accept. Secondly, the concept of a ‘higher power’ carries with it overtones of both supernaturalism and traditional theism although I accept that the concept certainly need not be construed in those terms nor do all who use the term accept or embrace those ideas.

Call it a ‘higher power’ or a ‘power-not-oneself’ (I prefer the latter)---in a sense, it doesn’t really matter. As J.Krishnamurti (pictured right) said many times, ‘The word is not the thing.’ It is the reality behind the word that is the important thing. You can call ‘it’ God if you like, but the problem with a word like ‘God’ is that the word has many unfortunate overtones for a great many people.

The ideas to which I refer are not in any way ‘supernatural’ as that idea is ordinarily understood. The ideas may, if you wish, be described as being transnatural or transrational. In that regard, Sir Julian Huxley, in an essay entitled ‘The New Divinity’ in his compilation book Essays of a Humanist, had this to say about the word ‘divine’, after first reminding his readers that ‘the term divine did not originally imply the existence of gods: on the contrary, gods were constructed to interpret [our] experiences of this quality’:

For want of a better, I use the term divine, though this quality of divinity is not truly supernatural but transnatural---it grows out of ordinary nature, but transcends it. The divine is what man finds worthy of adoration, that which compels his awe.

I like Huxley’s description of the ‘divine’---something that is ‘transnatural’ in the sense that it ‘grows out of ordinary nature, but transcends it.’ The spiritual ideas to which I have just referred pertaining to the self and a power-not-oneself come from a ‘place’ (ugh) that is much more powerful than the rational mind, Call it transnatural or transrational, it is anything but irrational or (heaven forbid) ‘unnatural.’ The ideas ‘work’ psychologically, that is, in and through the medium and mechanisms of human consciousness, even if some aspects of the ideas or mechanisms involved are or at least appear to be oxymoronic or at least counter-intuitive in nature.

Now, what if it be the case that you, the reader, embrace supernaturalism and maybe also the concept of a traditional God or gods? Can mindfulness ‘work’ for you? Of course, it can, if you are prepared to do what is required to live and act mindfully. If you choose to believe in the 'supernatural', that does not prevent you from practising mindfulness. The latter does not require any beliefs at all. For what it’s worth, I think mindfulness works best without any beliefs at all, as beliefs operate as a barrier to what would otherwise be a direct and immediate experience of reality---but that’s a matter for each individual to grapple with.

Don’t try---let!

Recently, a friend of mine---let’s call her Nancy (not her real name)---said to me, ‘I’ve tried mindfulness---it’s not my cup of tea.’ Now, Nancy is very well-educated and extremely skeptical (which is OK with me), but I’m not sure she really understands what mindfulness is all about. You see, mindfulness means simply being and staying awake at all times ... from one moment to the next. Mindfulness is living---and being aware at all times that you are living, and not just existing. Another thing---you don't ‘try’ mindfulness. If you ‘try’ to do this sort of thing you will fail. You must let it happen. It's a spiritual process. For Nancy to say, 'I’ve tried mindfulness---it’s not my cup of tea,' is like saying, 'I've tried living---it’s not my cup of tea.' Mindfulness is simply living in the moment, from moment to moment. I said to Nancy, ‘Mindfulness is actually just living---with your eyes open at all times---and any sensible, rational person like yourself would want to do that at all times.’

Actually, in a very profound sense mindfulness is not something you ‘do.’ It simply happens when you remove the barriers to it happening (eg judging, analyzing, etc). Mindfulness is not a 'thing' at all. It is 'no-thing', that is, letting life unfold from one moment to the next. All you have to do is ... stay awake ... watch ... observe ... and be choicelessly aware of what is unfolding as your life experience. It means being aware that you are actually aware. 'To be awake is to be alive,' wrote Henry David Thoreau. I love those words.

I also love what the Zen master said to his then not so-enlightened student (who had asked the master what he had to do in order to become enlightened), 'Whatever you do, don't think of the white monkey.' Of course, you know what happened then. All the poor student could think of was---yes, the whote monkey. You see, thinking about not thinking about the white monkey is the same as thinking about the white monkey. Trying not to think about the white monkey results in your thinking about the white monkey. Now, how did I get onto that? Forgive me.

So, never, never ‘try’ to ‘do’ mindfulness. Just ‘let’ it happen---and ‘let go.’ Few things are more important than that.

RELATED POSTS

RELIGION WITHOUT SUPERNATURALISM

WHY THE TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF GOD IS CONTRADICTORY

ASPIRITUAL GUIDE TO MINDFUL LIVING

IS MINDFULNESS A RELIGION?

DALAI LAMA SAYS 'MINDFULNESS IS NOT RELIGIOUS'

FORGET ABOUT HAVING A ‘TRANSCENDENTAL’ EXPERIENCE!

BETTER TO NOT BELIEVE AT ALL

THE DEATH OF PAUL KURTZ---FATHER OF SECULAR HUMANISM

Emeritus Professor Paul Kurtz and Dr Ian Ellis-Jones

This, my 200th post on this blog site, is dedicated to the memory of a giant of a human being, a man I had the great pleasure and honour of knowing, the philosopher Dr Paul Kurtz (pictured above [with yours truly], as well as below).

During the time I was president of both the Humanist Society of New South Wales and the Council of Australian Humanist Societies (CAHS), I met and came to know Paul Kurtz. (He was the leading keynote speaker at the Australis2000 IHEU/CAHS humanist congress we organized in Sydney which took place in November 2000, and there were other subsequent occasions in which we interacted and shared ideas.) I have never forgotten the good advice I received from Paul, namely, to always resist what Kurtz described as 'the transcendental temptation,' as well as to avoid engaging in 'magical thinking.'

Paul Kurtz---please see this online obituary---was Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, where he had taught philosophy for some 26 years, and one of the world's greatest apologists for secular humanism and freethought. He was the author of many seminal books on philosophy, religion, humanism and freethought, including, not so coincidentally, one entitled The Transcendental Temptation: A Critique of Religion and the Paranormal.

I remember when I became a humanist, after coming to the conclusion that not only were there no good reasons for believing in the God of traditional theism, there were also very good reasons for not believing in such a God, I happened to mention the fact of my embracing humanism---something I still embrace, but not dogmatically or exclusively---to a rather illiberal Baptist friend of mine, who was not known for his critical thinking even though he taught psychology at a university in Sydney and had also been very successful in the business world. The friend said, ‘How can you possibly be a humanist, after the Holocaust and such like events?’ I said to him, ‘I am entitled to ask of you---How can you possibly believe in an all-loving, omnibenevolent, all-powerful personal God in the light of all that gratuitous suffering!’

As I see it, human beings are not totally depraved. They are certainly not evil beyond measure. However, they are also not good beyond credibility. My erstwhile friend seemed to think that humanists believe that human beings are inherently good or perfect. Not so. Humanists are certainly not blind to all the evil that human beings have caused over many centuries. What they do believe---or rather affirm---is that human and other problems can only be solved by human beings, working collaboratively and using reason. Secular humanism rejects supernaturalism and traditional theism, affirming instead the need for skepticism, reason, free inquiry and critical thinking.

Now, back to Paul Kurtz. He was a very tolerant and open-minded man, except as regards such things as religious fundamentalism, New Age nonsense, and various bogus, non-evidence based forms of alternative medicine. He was not opposed to all religious thought and associated practices, and he often expressed the view that Buddhism, at least in the Theravāda tradition, was very humanistic in its ontology and ethical teachings.

Kurtz was no 'dry' rationalist, nor was he an ‘angry atheist.’ Indeed, he explicitly rejected the one-dimensional militant ‘new atheist’ stance so common today. In more recent years he spoke and wrote of a more universalistic and all-inclusive neo-humanism, emphasizing the positive and 'exuberant' dimensions of unbelief and highlighting the need to work together with religious people to solve common sociopolitical problems. Neo-humanists are not religious---‘surely not in the literal acceptance of the creed’---but neither are they ‘avowedly antireligious,’ although they may be critical of religious claims, ‘especially those that are dogmatic or fundamentalist or impinge upon the freedom of others.’

Religion is not all bad. Far from it. Here are some of the things that make religion---any religion---bad: the belief that one particular religion is the only true religion, or the only way to  God, heaven or whatever; the belief in supernaturalism, and the assertion that there is more than one way of being, that is, that there are different (eg higher and lower) levels of reality; the belief that one’s God has spoken his or her final word in some one person (eg Jesus or Muhammad); the belief that one’s holy book and/or one’s leader are infallible and/or inerrant; the belief that ethical behaviour and morality require a religious underpinning; the belief that human beings are totally depraved; the belief that reason cannot be trusted, and that there are revelations and supposed truths that cannot be questioned and that must simple be accepted on faith and on the basis of religious authority.

Those who believe any of the foregoing are deluded---dangerously so, at times. I make no apology for saying that. None whatsoever. You may wish to accuse me of being dogmatic on that matter. If I am guilty of dogmatism as respects that matter, it is a dogmatism brought about by the exercise of reason, free rational inquiry and critical thinking, and I do not resile from it.

Paul Kurtz embraced and promulgated a humanism that was joyous, positive and life-affirming. He made it clear that humanists are---or at least ought to be---best defined by what they are for, not what they are against.

I am still a humanist. People like Paul Kurtz make you proud to be one. I fully and unashamedly embrace the sentiment in these words from Humanist Manifesto II: 'While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.' However, because---and not notwithstanding---I am a humanist, I will continue to affirm and expound all that is good and noble in the world’s religions and in spirituality. I will also continue to rail against the silly and the irrational, of which there is plenty in all organized religions (especially the monotheistic ones).

Thank you, Paul Kurtz. You taught us how to live joyously, fully and sensibly---without illusions.

RELATED POSTS

FORGET ABOUT HAVING A ‘TRANSCENDENTAL’ EXPERIENCE!

YOU’RE AN ATHEIST? THAT’S GOOD!

RATIONAL HUMANENESS IS THE ANSWER

A SPIRITUAL GUIDE TO MINDFUL LIVING

No, I am not talking about a so-called spirit guide, but a 'spiritual guide' ... that is, a guide which makes reference to certain 'spiritual' [see below] principles.

The meaning of the word ‘spirituality’

First, what do I mean by the word ‘spirituality’?

The English word ‘spirit’ comes from the Latin spiritus meaning, among other things, breath, breathing, air, inspiration, character, spirit, life, vigour, and courage.

Spirituality does not require nor depend upon any notions of ‘supernaturalism’ but refers to non-physical and non-transient things such as faith, hope and charity as well as states of affairs or human consciousness which, going ‘beyond words’, are only partially (if at all) graspable by human concepts ... things that cannot be seen but which are otherwise capable of being apprehended, if not fully understood. 

Spirituality is thus a composite word referring to the ‘domain where mind, personality, purpose, ideals, values and meanings dwell’ (Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan). In a similar vein, Father Joe Martin (pictured left), an acknowledged authority on spirituality and addictive disease, would always make it clear that spirituality, in the first instance, had little or nothing to do with God, but everything to do with the development of the mind, the emotions and the will.

Similarly, another Catholic priest, the Redemptorist Father Gerard H Chylko, wrote that spirituality is ‘made up of all those qualities of mind and character that make us who we are: our values, our desires, our feelings, and our dreams’.

All of the above makes perfect good sense to me.

Finally (at least on this point), Quaker writer Parker J Palmer has described spirituality as a ‘longing to be connected with the largeness of life’, that is, to something larger than one’s ego or 'self' (that is, some ‘power-not-oneself’). I like that.

Many people say, 'I am spiritual, but not religious,' as if the two things were worlds apart. Mind you, it does seem that way far too often! Never forget that religion is concerned with spirituality but, sadly, it is also concerned with other things as well ... such as power, wealth, control, dependency and, even at times, abuse.

Perhaps the main difference between spirituality and religion is that the former gives one complete freedom to choose one’s own individual path towards wholeness, recovery and ‘enlightenment’. Religion is the institutionalised, organised formal practice of a particular spiritual tradition's beliefs (ugh!), ethics, and rituals, whereas spirituality, doesn’t necessarily entail any adherence to a religious tradition.

Seven principles for mindful living

I have referred to these working ‘principles’ in many different blogs but I thought it might be helpful to bring them altogether ... for present purposes and otherwise.

These ‘principles’ are NOT articles of faith. They are NOT beliefs. I will have more to say about ‘beliefs’ shortly. At best, these principles are to be ‘accepted’ as working hypotheses ... and as guideposts to mindful living. They have served me well.

First principle: Life is one

Now, I must be careful here. I am not advocating monism or pantheism. When I say that life is one, I am trying to say a couple of things.

First, a single logic applies to all things and how they are related. All things exist in the same order or level of reality ... and on the same ‘plane’ of observability. If that were not the case, it would be impossible for us to be attentive to, and otherwise aware of, what happens from one moment to the next. Just think about that for a few seconds, and it will be obvious to you that such is the case.

Secondly, nothing is simple, indeed all things are complex, have internal differentiation, and interact with other things ... but, once again, all on the same level or order of reality and observability. Yes, all things are constituent members of wider systems and exchanges of things. The forms of things are constantly being transmuted.

Call it the ‘interconnectedness of all life’ or, if you like, ‘InterBeing’ (the latter wonderful term comes from Thich Nhat Hanh [pictured right]; see also the 'InterBeing' calligraphy, above left). In that sense, there is only one life manifesting itself in all things and as all things.

You don’t have to be a monist to know, intuitively, that life forever ‘gives’ of itself to itself in order to perpetuate itself. In that sense, we can rightly say that the ‘One [referring to ‘life’ itself, not some supposed transcendent Being] becomes the many.’

Also, when we look around us, what do we see? Living things, all living out their livingness, in and as themselves.

I also think it is self-evident and intuitively obvious that the ‘life’ flowing through your veins – and through and in all other living things as well – is, in a metaphysical (if not also in a physical) sense the same ‘life’ flowing through me. That’s as strong as I can put it without plunging into subjective idealism or monism.

Second principle: There is nothing ‘supernatural’

This second principle flows logically from the first.

As I have said many times, how can we conceive of there being any existence, or other order or level of reality, other than our ordinary ‘natural’ existence, that is, the way in which ordinary things exist in space and time. Any notion of there being different orders or levels of reality or truth is contrary to the very nature and possibility of discourse ... that is, unspeakable ... not to mention meaningless.

In short, we can have no conception of any such existence, nor any conception of what it might possibly be like.

Further, as already mentioned, if there were 'higher' and 'lower' orders or levels of reality, it would be impossible for us to be attentive to, and otherwise aware of, what happens from one moment to the next. The 'observer', the thing 'observed', and the 'act of observing' itself, must all be located on the one order of level of reality.

Listen to these words from the late Australian bishop Lawrence W Burt (pictured left):

'In a universe of LAW there can be no supernatural. There may be the super-physical, or super-normal, but there can be no super-natural. You cannot transcend Natural law, nor suspend it.' [Original emphasis]

So, if someone says to you, ‘There is a supernatural dimension to life, I’ve experienced it, but the reason you haven't experienced it is because you don't believe like me,’ just smile benignly, and say, ‘Have a cup of tea.’ (That's pure Zen. See the other piece of calligraphy, below, which reads, 'Go and have some tea.')

Having said all of the above, if you choose to believe [see below] in the 'supernatural', that does not prevent you from practising mindfulness. You see, mindfulness doesn't require any beliefs at all, nor will any beliefs prevent mindfulness from 'working' ... except, perhaps, a negative belief pertaining to the nature of mindfulness itself (eg that it is 'demonic' or something similarly silly). Further, as mindfulness, being entirely naturalistic, operates on the one so-called 'ordinary' order or level of reality in which all things live and move and have their being, mindfulness can and will work irrespective of the existence or non-existence of other supposed orders or levels of reality.

Third principle: Reject the unobservable as the cause of the observable

This third principle flows logically from both the first and the second principles.

One of the reasons I like Buddhism, and am a Buddhist, is that Buddhism, at least in its simplest and most ‘uncluttered’ forms, is almost entirely empirically-based. (Not so with most other religions, especially the monotheistic ones which, at their fundamentalist irrational worst, become quite toxic.)

Now, whether you are a Buddhist or not, it pays to be an empiricist. Buddha Shakyamuni was one ... indeed, one of the greatest empirical philosophers of all times. He refused to affirm that which was unobservable. He relied solely on the observable. Not a bad way to proceed. The 'answer' to any problem can only be found on the same order or level of reality as the 'problem.' Obvious, isn't it?

Unfortunately, many people still seek 'answers' to their problems from 'outside' or otherwise 'beyond' this spatiotemporal world, and they even believe [sic] that they receive answers. It's only a matter of time before this sort of problem is categorised by the American Psychiatric Association or some similar body as a 'mental illness.' Indeed, as belief in the so-called 'supernatural' wanes – particularly in Western societies – then it will no longer be able to be asserted by religionists of the kind in question that their false and fixed, and otherwise irrational, belief [sic] is one 'normally held by others of the same culture or subculture.' At that point in time, belief in the so-called supernatural will be seen to be what, in truth, it really is – a clinical delusion. Even at this point in time, it's a very fine line, for as the noted psychiatrist Dr Thomas Szasz has said, 'If you talk to God, you are praying; if God talks to you, you have schizophrenia.' It's not funny. It's serious.

Nothing – I repeat nothing – is more important than, or superior to, facts ... that is, occurrences in space and time. Nothing! Indeed, there are only facts.

So, discard forever the idea that there are entities beyond space and time which yet work out their supposed purposes within space and time. Both science and logic compel us to reject the unobservable as the cause of the observable.

In all things, draw your conclusions and inferences from objective facts, based on observation and the use of unaided reason, and without appeal to any supposed ‘supernatural’ causes ... and NEVER accept anything that offends against your sensibilities or is otherwise contrary to reason.

So, if some person says to you, ‘You will never understand God [or Super-person X or whoever] unless you get beyond or abandon reason,’ again, just smile benignly, and say, ‘Have a cup of tea.’ (More Zen! The only sensible response to people of that kind. If they mention so-called 'revelation', tell them that reason is the only form of 'revelation', for the reasons previously given.)

Once again, there is only one order or level of reality. That is why we speak of the practice of mindfulness in terms of the presence of bare and curious attention to, and choiceless and non-judgmental awareness of, the action of the present moment ... from one moment to the next.

Fourth principle: Don’t ‘believe’

People ordinarily believe when they don't know or understand something. There is no need to believe anything ... and nothing to believe. Strange as it may seem, there is also no need to disbelieve anything ... and nothing to disbelieve. Whether or not something is the case does not depend upon belief or disbelief. That is why Buddha Skakyamuni said, 'Do not believe, for if you believe, you will never know. If you really want to know, don't believe.'

So, forget about belief-systems. Beliefs are for ‘spiritual cripples’ ... for those who can’t, or won’t, think for themselves. Beliefs, by their very nature, take the form of prejudices, or biases, of various kinds. The Buddha referred to beliefs as being in the nature of thought coverings or veils (āvarnas).

Choose a religion or, if you don’t like religion, a philosophy or a ‘way of life’ that doesn’t require you to believe or disbelieve anything. Life is Truth, and life is forever open-ended. We, as part of life's self-expression, are always in direct 'contact' with, and can always be choicelessly aware of, Truth. No doctrine or dogma, and no priest, guru or saviour, is needed for you to know and experience Truth. Beliefs actually get in the way of things. They are a barrier to Truth. In the words of Krishnamurti, 'Truth is a pathless land.' He also said, 'To find truth, or God, there must be neither belief nor disbelief. ... To seek God without understanding oneself has very little meaning.'

So, that is another reason I like Buddhism. Buddhists don’t ‘believe’. They know (well, obviously not everything, or even most things, but some things at least) ... and they try to understand.

Avoid, like the plague, those who say things like, ‘Super-person X is the only way to God,’ or ‘You must believe this [or "Super-person X"] in order to be saved.’ As I have said many times, if people are rewarded for believing such things, then I wouldn't want to believe [sic] in or worship such a god.

We, in the West, live in an age of crass materialism. Is it because most Westerners have given up on so-called 'orthodox' Christianity? The mainstream Christian churches would have you believe [sic] that is the cause of Western materialism ... that, along with human greed. No, I tend to agree with Bishop Burt (referred to and quoted above), who, after accusing the Christian Church of having 'lost the chart of man's spiritual origin and destiny,' went on to say:

'Western materialism is the product of certain orthodox Church doctrines which have been the substance of Christian thought for centuries. If modern civilisation is to be saved from the suicidal doom to which it is drifting, materialistic doctrines, even though invested with a halo of sanctity, must be expunged from Christian teaching.'

'Orthodox Christianity has lost its appeal to thoughtful people because its primitive doctrines are divorced from reason, from logic and commonsense.'

Those words were spoken in Sydney, Australia, over 70 years ago. Ever since then, Australians and most other Westerners – who, like me, are not prepared to believe that which offends against one's sensibilities or which is otherwise contrary to reason – have been leaving the churches in droves. For the most part, I don't blame them.

So, dear friends, whatever you do ... don't 'believe'.

Fifth principle: There is no ‘self’

That's right, there is no such thing as ‘self’. Now, I know that is a hard concept for many to grasp, but it is the considered view of most leading philosophers and neuroscientists.

If you stop and think about it for a moment, there is something intrinsically wrong with the notion of the ‘self’. So-called ‘consciousness’ – for there really is no such thing (except in a ‘relational’ sense) – is neither a fixed quantity or quality nor of fixed duration, but simply ‘something’ quite intermittent in nature that undergoes change moment by moment.

The truth is our ‘stream of consciousness’ (awareness-ing) goes through continuous fluctuations from moment to moment. As such, there is nothing to constitute, let alone sustain, a separate, transcendent ’I’ structure or entity. Yes, we have a sense of continuity of ‘self’, but it is really an illusion. It has no ‘substance’ in psychological reality. It is simply a mental construct composed of a continuous ever-changing process or confluence of impermanent components (‘I-moments’) which are cleverly synthesized by the mind in a way which appears to give them a singularity and a separate and independent existence and life of their own.

Sixth principle: Obey the ‘law of indirectness’

The metaphysical ‘law of indirectness’ is easy to explain because it is self-evident and intuitively obvious. It is also empirically based.

The ‘law’ says this – don't attempt to put a negative or otherwise troublesome thought or problem out of one's mind directly but rather let the thought or problem slip from the sphere of conscious analysis.

That is the ‘right’ ... indeed, the only ... way to proceed.

Don't try ... instead, let.

Seventh principle: Resist not!

There is another metaphysical or spiritual ‘law’ which is very closely related to the one mentioned above – the ‘law of non-resistance.’

Put simply, this ‘law’ says, ‘Whatever you resist, persists.’

Even Jesus is reported to have told his followers, 'Resist not evil' (Mt 5:39). The American spiritual teacher Vernon Howard, whose writings and lectures have had a big impact on my life, said this: 'Resistance to the disturbance is the disturbance.' Get the picture?

So, when it comes to your mindfulness practice, don’t try to actively bring thoughts or feelings up to the surface. Instead, be with the moment. Indeed, remain embodied in the moment. Whenever a body sensation, sense perception, thought, feeling, emotion, image, plan, memory, reflection or commentary arises, do not resist it or try to expel, drive it away or change it. Simply observe and notice, with passive detachment, and without attitude, comment or judgment.

RELATED POSTS

IS MINDFULNESS A RELIGION?

DALAI LAMA SAYS 'MINDFULNESS IS NOT RELIGIOUS'

MINDFULNESS IN THE BIBLE

THE MINDFUL ART OF KNOWING ONESELF

RATIONAL HUMANENESS IS THE ANSWER

FORGET ABOUT HAVING A ‘TRANSCENDENTAL’ EXPERIENCE!

MINDFULNESS, THE ‘SELF’ AND SERENITY

TAKING REFUGE IN MINDFULNESS

THE MINDFUL MIND OF NO-MIND

MINDFULNESS, PROFESSOR JOHN ANDERSON AND THE FACTICITY OF THINGS

THE POWER OF PRACTICAL MINDFULNESS

BETTER TO NOT BELIEVE AT ALL