GOOD RELIGION … AND BAD RELIGION

'Religion is a monumental chapter
in the history of human egotism.' William James.

I’m not sure whether I am religious or not. That’s a strange thing coming from me---a minister of religion … albeit a minister of a very liberal religion [Unitarian Universalism] … assuming for the moment it is a single religion, or even a religion at all, but that’s another matter.

I have come to dislike organized religion immensely. All too often religion---all religions---divide rather than unite. Religion is the cause of so much misery in our world. It’s certainly not the only cause, or even the major cause, but it is right up there nevertheless.

What is ‘religion’? Well, I am supposed to know something about that subject, as I wrote a huge number of words on the subject in my PhD thesis. Regrettably, the derivation of the English word ‘religion’ is by no means as clear as perhaps one would like, but we do know that the current English word ‘religion’ is derived from the Middle English word religioun which comes from the Old French word religion. Then we need to go to the Latin word religio. That word has affinities with three separate Latin verbs:

· religare, to restrain, bind, bind back, bind up, bind fast together, tie back (especially to oneself again), from ligare, to tie, close a deal, cement an alliance, unite in harmony

· relegare, to banish, from legare, to depute, commission, send as an emissary, bequeath, entrust

· relegere, to gather, collect again, review, re-read, re-examine carefully, from legere, to read, recite, or choose.

All very confusing. Actually, it’s even more complicated than the above, but that’s enough for present purposes. When one considers the meanings of the various suggested derivations of the current English word 'religion' there appear to be some common elements or at least similar themes.

First, religion involves, at one or more levels, the notion of ‘binding together’ or ‘binding back’, whether to oneself (in the sense of one’s true or spiritual nature), one’s ultimate ‘source’ or to other people as some sort of response to life, with a sense of awe, reverence, ‘fear’, devotion, veneration and respect, whereby meaning is gained.

Secondly, religion involves, at one or more levels, the notions of ‘return’, ‘recovery’, ‘restoration’ and ‘re-encounter,’ whether to one’s own self, some condition or way of life, or one’s ultimate home or resting place, with the object and purpose of religion being to restore to us the knowledge of what we really are.

Thirdly, religion ordinarily involves the selection and systematization of certain teachings and beliefs and a consequent abiding by that selection with some degree of regulation and control (eg in the form of codes of conduct) as well as conscientiousness and scrupulousness arising from the religion and inherent as well in its practice.

Fourthly, religion involves the notion of ties in the sense of the fulfillment of duties and commitment.

Fifthly, religion involves practices and activities intended to give effect to the foregoing including but not limited to repetitious rites and the reproduction of formulas and expressions.

Finally, religion involves notions of holiness, sacredness and sanctity (including but not limited to sacred places or things and objects of veneration) and often---but not necessarily---involves notions of supernaturalism as well as superstition.

Now, it may seem overly simplistic to divide religion---all religions---into ‘good and ‘bad,’ but I intend to do just that. Here I go.

Good religion unites, that is, it binds together not just the adherents of the particular religion but all persons in the sense that it recognizes the existence of a larger family of persons who, though they may not be followers of the religion in question, are nevertheless worthy of the same respect and love shown to adherents of the religion. Good religion recognizes the interconnectedness of all life and all persons. On May 18, 1966 the Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr [pictured left] delivered an important lecture at the Unitarian Universalist Association General Assembly at Hollywood, Florida. Among the important things Dr King said was this:

'All I'm saying is this: that all life is inter-related, and somehow we are all tied together. For some strange reason I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be, and you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be. This is the inter-related structure of all reality.'

Good religion accepts, embraces, affirms, and seeks to enhance the inter-related structure of all reality. It does not seek to impose its beliefs or practices on those ‘outside’ the religion. That is hard for a religion such as Christianity, which seeks to follow what it understands Jesus meant when he said---assuming he actually spoke these words---‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation’ (Mk 16:15). Now, I could go on for some time giving you my understanding of those words, and what is meant by the ‘gospel,’ but I dare say most of my readers couldn’t care less about the matter. Those who do ‘care’ would reject what I would say in any event. I take comfort in these words of Richard Le Gallienne: 'Organized Christianity has probably done more to retard the ideals that were its founder's than any other agency in the world.' Ditto most if not all other organized religions.

Good religion does not oppose the findings of science nor the use of reason. It eschews superstition and does not ground itself in outdated and silly notions of supernaturalism. It allows its adherents to have perfect freedom in the interpretation of its scriptures and teachings. It erects no barriers around its ‘altars.’ In short, good religion is inclusive whereas bad religon is exclusivistic in nature. Good religion teaches and practises love. Bad religion teaches love ... but withholds it from certain people who think and act differently.

Yes, bad religion divides, judges, bans, and condemns. So, we have the 'saved' and the 'unsaved,' the 'faithful' versus the 'infidels,' and so on. Dreadful stuff. Appalling. Bad religion promulgates the nasty view that it is the one true religion, that its founder or head is the only way to God, heaven, enlightenment, bliss, or whatever. I make no apologies for using the word ‘nasty.’ Bad religion asserts the supremacy of its so-called ‘holy’ book over all others, and may even claim that its holy book is infallible and inerrant. 'The inspiration of the Bible depends on the ignorance of the person who reads it,' wrote Robert G Ingersoll. The same goes for all so-called 'holy' books. All talk of infallibility, inerrancy and unchallengeable authority in matters pertaining to religion is dangerous---and silly---stuff. It is the stuff of martyrs, religious terrorists, and the like. Such stuff has no place in the world of the 21st century, even though we see the evidence and workings of such religion all around us.

Of course, I am showing a certain prejudice or bias in all that I have written, for I have aligned myself with all that I see as ‘good’ religion, and strenuously reject all that I see as ‘bad’ religion, but I must and will say this in self-defence---I have used reason. If ‘truth’ is truth---that is, if the word has any meaning at all---then truth must be universal. It cannot be the exclusive preserve of some people but not others, or of one religion but not others. I like what Oscar Wilde said, 'Truth, in matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived.'  That's funny, but Wilde is wrong. Truth, in all matters, is never a matter of opinion. Truth is a matter of what is.

Now, I must be careful here. I am not saying that all religions teach the same thing, although I do hold the view that, at a certain level, there are certain teachings that are more-or-less common to most, if not all, of the world’s major religions. Also, I am not saying that one religion is as good, or as bad, as another, because all of them are flawed in various ways … including the one of which I am a minister. What I do say is this---some religions are more silly, and (even worse) more dangerous, than others, and some religions have few redeeming features. I will leave it at that for the time being.

Religion is not unimportant. Indeed, it is of great importance. However, one does not need to be ‘religious,’ in any formal, organizational sense, to be a decent and responsible human being. Indeed, it may even be easier to be the latter kind of a person if one eschews religion in a formal, organizational sense. However, religion, in the true sense of the word, is inherent in what we are as human beings. I am thinking especially of the notions of ‘binding together’ and ‘binding back,’ as well as the idea of being ‘restored’ to our true nature. Religion is about ‘going home’---and, no, I am talking about some supposed ‘place’ called heaven, paradise or the like. We all need to be more closely bound together, and without some sense of being ‘bound back’ to our source---or to some principle, power of ‘thing’ of supreme, indeed ultimate, importance---life has little meaning. We all need to ‘wake up’ to an understanding of who and what we really are. True religion is about being … fully human. Albert Einstein [pictured below] expressed it well when he said:


'[A] person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value.'

A true ‘religious’ response to life---displayed as a sense of awe, reverence, and respect to all persons, indeed all life---is of ultimate importance. 

Only a response to life of that kind can save us---and the planet.

RELATED POSTS

‘HMMM, ISN’T THAT A CULT?’

IS MINDFULNESS A RELIGION?

BETTER TO NOT BELIEVE AT ALL

‘HMMM, ISN’T THAT A CULT?’

What is a ‘cult’? The purpose of this post is to shed some light on the meaning of this much abused and misused word ‘cult.’

Recently, I became aware that a neighbour of mine---who has little or no time for religion of any sort (which is fine with me)---was heard to say that the religious body of which I am a minister, namely, Unitarianism, was a ‘cult.’ I was quite bemused by the comment. You see, if the person in question had some definite religious convictions of their own, the comment might be understandable up to a point, but that was not the case here. The word ‘cult’ was simply being used in a pejorative sense---which is ordinarily the case---and as a weapon of some silly sort.

Well, is Unitarianism a cult? Definitely not! If anything, it's a kind of 'anti-cult.' Here’s why.

A cult almost always claims some new or special or unique revelation.  Unitarianism---also known in some places as Unitarian Universalism---does not. Also, a cult invariably invests its founders, and often its leaders as well, and their teachings and writings, with the impress of finality, if not infallibility. Unitarianism does none of those things---indeed, the whole idea of infallibility is anathema to Unitarians, not to mention bloody silly! In addition, a cult is a system of religious beliefs that replaces one’s own beliefs with its own, and gives legitimacy---sometimes blatantly, and sometimes quite subtly---only to its own teachings, such that, if a person cannot or does not conform, they are excluded whether by formal excommunication or other means. Unitarianism is and does none of the above.

Unitarianism is both a denominational and a transdenominational vehicle for all spiritual seekers, regardless of their religious affiliation or background. Unitarianism freely shares its teachings with all persons, and it has always had a broad and liberal spiritual focus.

Now, what I am about to say is very important. Unitarianism is not so much a religion per se as an approach to religion and a praxis, that is, a particular and quite distinctive way in which certain spiritual principles (such as the inherent worth and dignity of every person, a free and responsible search for truth and meaning, and the interdependent web of all existence) are engaged, applied and put into practice.

Unitarianism is not a single religion among other world religions---some scholars and commentators call it a meta-religion---but rather a way of looking at religion and spirituality, and at the many varieties of religious and spiritual experiences of the whole of humanity (including our experiences and enjoyment of music, the arts and sciences, as well as the natural world). Unitarianism is also a way of looking at life---with curiosity, openness, non-discrimination and choiceless awareness. Unitarians, being liberal-minded, like to 'think things through' in a critical, informed, disciplined, and fearless way.

Lewis B Fisher, the late 19th-century Universalist theologian, once wrote, 'Universalists are often asked to tell where they stand. The only true answer to give to this question is that we do not stand at all, we move.' I like that.

Although not a philosophy per se, Unitarianism performs a similar function to philosophy at its best in that it provides a fundamental and overall coherent apparatus for understanding and criticism, illuminating all fields of human inquiry including politics, economics, sociology, psychology, philosophy, theology, ethics, and the arts. Unitarianism provides a ‘key’---but just one key---to understanding those and other disciplines. In short, Unitarianism is a movement, a position, and an adventure in ‘continuing spiritual education’.

Unitarianism, in its more ‘modern’ form, came out of the Protestant Reformation when many people claimed the right to privately read and interpret the Bible for themselves and to set their own conscience as a test of the teachings of religion. The theological roots of Unitarianism can be found in early Judaism as well as in 16th-century Europe (in particular, Hungary, Poland and Romania) when some prominent Biblical scholars affirmed the notion that the Divine was one and indivisible, and challenged the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was uniquely and exclusively God. (Please note the important combination of those words---‘uniquely’ and ‘exclusively.’ Christian Unitarians had no problem affirming the divinity of Jesus, but his supposed deity was a different matter altogether.)

The philosophical roots of Unitarianism go back much further, and can be found in such people as the Stoics, the Epicureans, and the Skeptics, all of whom affirmed natural morality, freedom from superstition, and salvation by character.

Unitarian churches, fellowships and societies impose no particular creed, article or profession of faith upon our members and adherents. Unitarians are therefore free to explore and develop their own distinctive spirituality and are encouraged to do so in a responsible way. There is nothing to believe in Unitarianism. Indeed, most Unitarians would regard beliefs and belief-systems as impenetrable barriers to knowing truth or reality.

During the last couple of hundred years Unitarianism has expanded beyond its Christian roots with many modern day Unitarians embracing Humanism, agnosticism, atheism, various forms of theism, nontheistic forms and systems of spirituality such as Buddhism, progressive Christianity and earth-based spirituality. In short, ‘post-Christian’ Unitarianism affirms the underlying truth of open and tolerant religion---sensibly interpreted.

Unitarians boldly affirm that the sacred or holy is ordinarily made manifest in the enchantment of everyday life, and embraces all persons and things as part of an interdependent cosmic web. Unitarians seek to live together in peace and promote the highest good for all, relying upon the authority of reason, conscience and experience in order to arrive at solutions to problems in a spirit of rational humaneness.

True it is that most if not all of the mainstream Christian churches regard Unitarianism as a cult. As proof of this Unitarian churches, fellowships and societies have consistently been denied membership to the World Council of Churches and their affiliated bodies around the world. Of course, as is often said, one person's orthodoxy is another person's heresy---and vice versa. Also, please keep in mind the above mentioned definition of a cult, namely, a system of religious beliefs that replaces one’s own beliefs with its own, and a religious movement that gives legitimacy only to its own teachings, such that, if a person cannot or does not conform, they are excluded whether by formal excommunication or other means.

Now, by this definition all of the mainstream Christian churches are cults, with the Roman Catholic Church being the largest and most successful of them all. Each member has to conform and fit the denominational bed ... or else! Ditto with Sydney Anglicanism, which has become a cult within a much larger cult (the latter being the worldwide Anglican Communion). In any event, in the eyes of the law, all religions bodies are ‘sects,’ each with its own particular cultus or form of worship.

Unitarians are non-conformists in all senses of that word. They are proud to be different, and they don’t mind being called heretics. You see, the word ‘heretic’ comes from a Greek word meaning ‘one who chooses’. Unitarians choose to be different. They choose to affirm as true what, in good conscience, they are each capable of knowing and understanding.

RELATED POSTS

IS MINDFULNESS A RELIGION?

BETTER TO NOT BELIEVE AT ALL

SO, YOU THINK YOU HAVEN'T BEEN BRAINWASHED?

THE EMERALD CITY REALLY IS GREEN

It’s not all that clear in the book The Wizard of Oz, but in subsequent Oz books the author L Frank Baum, having changed elements of the storyline more than once, made it unambiguously clear---the Emerald City really is green. There is no need for special green spectacles to be worn, to make it all look green!

The Emerald City, in the initial book, was not emerald (or green) at all. It was merely white, but each visitor to, and inhabitant of, the city was given green-tinted glasses which made everything appear green. They were told the glasses were necessary to shield them from the blindingly shiny green colour---the ‘brightness and glory’ of the city---but it was a hoax, as are most of the claims of conventional religion. (NOTE. In the 1939 movie the Emerald City really was green.)

I am not that old. I am only 57, but I well remember a time when Roman Catholics were prohibited by their church from reading the Bible in their homes or otherwise in private, and from attending any services (eg weddings or funerals) in Protestant churches. As recently as 2007 Pope Benedict XVI declared that Christian denominations other than his own were ‘not true churches.’ And Protestants, especially evangelicals, were---and still are---often no better, with their cries against ‘Popery.’ Most of the Baptist ministers I have known---including the one who was the celebrant at the marriage of my wife and I in 1980---took the view that Catholics weren’t really Christians. (I only mention Baptists because I was reared as one.)

John Algeo, in a wonderful article entitled 'The Wizard of Oz: The Perilous Journey,’ writes:

The green glasses are like the dogmas that religious wizards insist their followers adopt so their ecclesiastical cities will look green and vital.

The joke is that the Emerald City really is made of emeralds; it really is green, quite naturally. Religion really is what it says it is--a place of treasures and marvels--but the humbug wizards who have got themselves put in charge of it--the priests and ministers--have no faith in the natural value of their city, so they require the unnecessary and artificial spectacles. They think that emeralds need the assistance of green glasses. ...

The Emerald City is green! There is no need for special green spectacles to ‘make’ it look green. That reminds me of studying Philosophy as an undergraduate. The lecturer would say, ‘The sky is blue. The sky does not become any bluer because you believe it to be blue. Further, the proposition---the sky is blue---does not become any truer because you believe it to be true.’ As already mentioned, Baum changed the storyline of Oz such that, after the Emerald City was conquered by General Jinjur and her Army of Revolt, the use of green spectacles was discontinued, for the city itself is green (see The Marvelous Land of Oz). I love that. They came to realise that there was absolutely no need for the green spectacles. More and more people are coming to realise that the special green spectacles dispensed by organized religion are not only unnecessary, they actually distort reality. Good stuff! Bring it on!

Yes, the world really is green---and note that word ‘green.’ We don’t need any special glasses to see that. Beliefs and dogmas are thought coverings or veils (āvarnas). That is how Shakyamuni Buddha referred to them. These thought coverings or veils do not reveal reality, indeed they distort reality. How? Well, they prevent us from knowing and experiencing things as they really are in all their directness and immediacy. Belief is conditioning. Knowledge is experiential. Bugger beliefs and dogmas!

Beliefs and dogmas are a menace to society---and a total, impenetrable barrier to true knowledge and wisdom. Beliefs and dogmas are always someone else's 'version' of reality---the result of someone else's conditioned mind, mental habits and fragmentary thinking, that is, the past. There is nothing of any value to believe, and there is nothing to be gained by believing anything or anyone. Just observe. Then you will know---and understand.

Beliefs and dogmas, being 'mechanical' in nature, and constructed entirely of past thoughts, are for spiritual cripples---that is, those who can't, or won't, think for themselves. In that regard, I have always found helpful these words attributed to the Buddha: 'Do not believe, for if you believe, you will never know. If you really want to know, don't believe.'  The current president of the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Rev. Peter Morales, has stated:

Religion is not about what you or I or Baptists or Catholics or Jews or Muslims or Hindus believe. I would even go a giant step further: Belief is the enemy of religion. Let me repeat that: Belief is the enemy of religion. [Emphasis in the original]

Morales goes on to say that any religion that is focused on belief is 'a dangerous corruption of true religion.' True religion, according to Morales, is 'about what we love, not about what we think.' It's 'about what you and I hold sacred.' The Unitarian Universalist movement, says Morales, offers religion beyond belief, 'religion that transcends culture, race and class ... religion where we can grow spiritually, a religion where we can forge deep and lasting relationships, a religion where we can join hands to help heal a broken world.' That is the kind of religion - or metareligion - that I embrace.

The great thing about mindfulness is that it ensures that there are no barriers between you---the person that you are---and external reality. That’s right---no barriers. So, forget all about beliefs, dogmas, priests, mediators, gurus and anything else that seeks to interpose itself between you and reality and your direct, immediate and unmediated moment-to-moment experience of reality. Beware of all ‘humbug.’ Eschew it! The Emerald City is green. It really is! Let us rejoice in that fact---and come alive!

RELATED POSTS

MINDFULLY FOLLOW THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD

THE MINDFUL ART OF KNOWING ONESELF

BETTER TO NOT BELIEVE AT ALL

YOU ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE

ALICE IN WONDERLAND: THE ANCIENT WISDOM

WALKING THE LABYRINTH WITH MINDFULNESS

I have led spiritual retreats over the years as well as attending many church conventions, conferences and the like. At some of the places where these events took place there was a labyrinth which I enjoyed walking. These days, there are even portable and, heaven forbid, online labyrinths!

I have written elsewhere about mindful walking, and much of what I have written on mindful walking is relevantly applicable to walking the labyrinth.

The labyrinth, which is found in various forms in most religious and spiritual traditions and cultures (including Christian, Buddhist, Native American, Greek, Celtic and Mayan), and which has been around for over 4,000 years, provides innumerable opportunities to walk with an open heart and mind. In the process of walking mindfully and meditatively, whether in a labyrinth or elsewhere, you gain insight by simply walking ... and observing. Yes, walking can be a spiritual, indeed a sacred, experience, and the labyrinth is a powerful ‘tool’ for psycho-spiritual growth, self-alignment and transformation. The labyrinth brings us back to our 'centre', that is, to the 'core' of our being, which is the very ground of being itself ... the very self-livingness of life!

The labyrinth, with its mandala-like shape and pattern, is a most ancient archetypal symbol. Now, symbols are very important ‘things’. The Greek word sumbolon (‘throwing together’) ‘means really a correspondence between a noumenon and a phenomenon, between a reality in the higher archetypal world and its outer physical expression here’.

However, the labyrinth is more than just a symbol. As a walking meditation, the labyrinth is a ‘living symbol’ – what H P Blavatsky referred to as ‘concretized truth’ – in that it not only ‘symbolizes’, ‘represents’ or ‘stands for’ something else (the ‘inner reality’ and, in this case, ‘inner spaciousness’), it actually is instrumental in bringing about that reality and, in very truth, is that reality. Life is dynamic and not static. So is the labyrinth. Walking the labyrinth, in the form of 'Circling to the Centre', is engaging in a nonlinear, psycho-spiritual, transformative ritual.

The labyrinth is also a metaphor, and an objective metaphor at that. It is a metaphor for the so-called spiritual journey. Now, I have written elsewhere that, in a very profound sense, there is no journey. We are already ‘there’. The so-called ‘there’ is nothing more nor less than the eternal here-and-now ... and it is, or at least ought to be, more than enough for us! We simply need to be consciously awake, from one moment to the next. That is perhaps why the labyrinth has only one nonlinear path over which you meander back and forth, and that path is unicursal – that is, the way ‘in’ is also the way ‘out’ – as well as being operatively multicursal. (So it is with life. I will have more to say about that below.) Actually, the metaphor of the labyrinth is not so much the labyrinth but the walk itself.

I love the symbolism of the circle. In metaphysics and esoteric spirituality the circle represents the whole universe, eternity, infinity, life itself (as well as the continuum of life), reincarnation or rebirth, God, Spirit, perfection, oneness, the unity of all persons and things ... and so many other things as well. A circle has no beginning and no end, and so refers to what some refer to as the ‘cycle of existence’. Now, the great monotheistic religions assert that life is linear – that is, life had a definite beginning, and life will come to an end at some future point in time. Buddhists and certain others see life as being cyclical and nonlinear in nature. I lean more toward the latter view, but not in the rather mechanical way it is sometimes presented in Buddhism. One thing I do know is this – life is a spatiotemporal continuum of moment-to-moment experiences. Life is endless. In that regard, I love these oft-quoted lines from The Bhagavad-Gita:

Never the spirit was born, the spirit shall cease to be never. End and beginning are dreams. Birthless and deathless, timeless and ceaseless remaineth the spirit forever.

When we think of Aristotle we tend to think of logic, reason and frame-by-frame thinking, but it was Aristotle who said, ‘The soul thinks in images.’ I like that. The soul thinks in images. We need symbols, metaphors, ritual, myth and legend, for by means of those things we find connection.

Now, back to walking the labyrinth. There are three basic designs to the labyrinth – seven circuit (being perhaps the most common design today), eleven circuit, and twelve circuit. More importantly, there are three stages to walking the labyrinth: first, the path in to the centre; second, the centre itself; and third, the path out of the centre.

As already mentioned, there is only one meandering path leading to the centre and back out again ... and there are no dead ends! A maze is altogether different. It has dead ends and trick turns. Some cynics will say that life is like that! Well, the labyrinth is not like that. If you keep walking, you will reach the 'centre'. In my view, life is like that. Yes, as has often been said, no one is lost who knows the 'way' home. You see, there is no one 'right' way to walk the labyrinth. Being a Buddhist and a Unitarian Universalist, I love that! (I have no patience whatsoever for those who assert that there is only one way to Heaven, God or whatever.) Here, however, are some simple guidelines for walking the labyrinth.

In the Western Christian tradition there are three basic stages to the spiritual path or journey or the ‘mystical’ experience: purgation (or purification), illumination (or contemplation), and union. That is known as ‘The Threefold Path’. (Here is a precis of an address on 'Christian Mysticism' I delivered to a Masonic Rose Croix gathering in Sydney a few years ago.)

Outside, or beyond, the Western Christian tradition, we can speak of the ‘three R’s’ – releasing (that is, emptying the mind, and letting go of 'self'), receiving (that is, experiencing an ‘at-one-ment’ with All that is), and returning ... calmer, and with a deeper connection, as well as sense of connectedness, to oneself (that is, the person you are), to others, and to life itself.

The mystic Paul Brunton expressed it beautifully when he wrote, 'We must empty ourselves if we would be filled.' I have found in my own life that walking the labyrinth mindfully is a simple yet wonderfully powerful tool for self-emptying and spiritual infilling.

The Rev. Dr Lauren Artress, an Episcopalian (Anglican) priest, is the celebrated author of several books on the labyrinth including the invaluable Walking a Sacred Path: Rediscovering the Labyrinth as a Spiritual Practice. Dr Artress, a renowned ‘labyrinthologist’, writes that walking the labyrinth enables a person to 'gather an inner spaciousness inside' – a transrational and nonlinear experience that others refer to as entering sacred time and space. Dr Artress writes, 'We [have] lost our sense of connection to ourselves and to the vast mystery of creation. The web of creation has been thrown out of balance.' (The great mythographer Joseph Campbell used to say more-or-less the same thing.)

Here is a short video clip (all rights reserved) in which Dr Artress speaks about the sacred path known as the labyrinth:

In walking the labyrinth, anything can 'happen' ... in the form of, for example, thoughts, feelings, sensations, sounds, the physical experience of passing others, and so forth. Whatever arises, whatever happens, can serve as an insight. Returning from and out of the labyrinth is an opportunity to go forth ... ‘awake’. When Shakyamuni Buddha woke up, he said, ‘Now all beings have woken up.’ Perhaps the Buddha was saying that, in truth, there is no difference between the so-called enlightened state and our ordinary life. We live our life as if we were unenlightened. We simply need to observe ... and wake up.

Walking the labyrinth is a right-brain experience. The insight derived comes not from logical, rational frame-by-frame thinking – or any kind of thinking for that matter – but from psycho-spiritual intuition, imagery and imagination. The experience gained ought not to be talked away or analysed in any way. It is sacred. Like the initiatory experiences of the ancient mystery schools, the experience of walking the labyrinth is ultimately unspeakable.

As I have written before, truth – that is, reality – cannot be grasped by rational analysis or linear thought. Truth, and the experience of truth, are entirely a matter of direct experience. Once you start analysing truth, you are in the realm of ideas, opinions and beliefs. You have ceased to be in direct contact with truth itself. Ideas, opinions and beliefs are barriers to truth. Krishnamurti may have said (indeed he did say), 'Truth is a pathless land.' Well, the labyrinth may have a path of sorts, but it is as close as you can get to a 'pathless land', for the real 'path' of spacious pathlessness is within you ... in inner space.

To find a labyrinth near you, visit Veriditas, the online home of the Labyrinth Project. As already mentioned, there are even online labyrinths. Here’s a link to a couple of them. The commentary associated with the labyrinth found on this particular link is explicitly Christian (thankfully,  'Progressive Christian') but, with some psycho-spiritual gymnastics on the part of the 'walker', the labyrinth experience in question can still be enjoyed by non-Christians.

So, circle to the centre. Walk the labyrinth ... purposefully and mindfully ... and often.

Postscript: Have you heard of the condition known as labyrinthitis? No, it is not an addictive disease characterised by excessive and obsessive walking of labyrinths. Labyrinthitis is an inflammation of the inner ear. Fascinating. IEJ.



RELATED POSTS

HOW TO DO A WALKING MEDITATION ... MINDFULLY

YOU ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE

MINDFULNESS, THE 'SELF' AND SERENITY

ARE YOU RIGHT BRAINED OR LEFT BRAINED?