The Analects of Gods and Fools

What is Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP): Why and How it Works

2010-12-01T11:00:00.000-08:00

Throughout time, people have attributed a certain power to words or language. The ancient Indians believed Sanskrit represented the universe directly in the structure of its sound (Hamilton 23). According to the Bible, the expression of thought was the beginning of all things and that expression, or thought, was God (John 1.1). Language continues to hold a position of power in our modern world, although it is often taken for granted. In our subjective world of thought, the same world we project outward, it is all-powerful.

Language is what makes us human and defines our experience as humans; however, knowing and understanding this does nothing more than give us a representation of a reality, but learning to use this knowledge gives us the power to change that reality. This is the claim of a relatively new form of psychotherapy called Neurolinguistic Programming, or NLP (Bandler, The Structure 2).

NLP may be a relatively new model for therapy but the ideas it is based on are not. The father of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, compared the symbolic nature of dreams with language in several ways (Freud 347). The primary similarity between Freud’s work with dreams and NLP is in how the mind deals with contradictions. In dreams, contraries are disregarded. The concept ‘No’ or ‘Not’ is nonexistent in dreams (Freud 353).

NLP teaches that the subconscious mind does not understand negatives. Telling yourself that you are not going to smoke only forces the subconscious to focus on smoking. The subconscious misses the not, and the person eventually fails. Instead, NLP suggest telling yourself something positive (Taylor). Freud also found that some ancient languages behave in ways similar to that of dreams in this respect (Freud 353).

Poetry analysis is another aspect of language Freud compared to dream analysis (Freud 375-76). There are two main systems of the unconscious, according to Freud, condensation and displacement. Both of which are “essentially linguistic phenomena.” (Klages) After Freud there was Jacques Lacan, another psychoanalysis who investigated the relationship of language and psychology. He took the concept a step farther by stating that the unconscious mind was structured the same as language and controlled every aspect of existence.

The true nature of reality could not be seen through language, according to Lacan, only a representation of it. Once a person entered the realm of the symbolic, the true nature of reality was lost forever. His theory of psychoanalysis was based on ideas found in structural linguistics and anthropology (Klages).

Freud may be credited with birthing psychoanalysis, but the link between language and thought is a concept that was studied long before psychoanalysis was born. The difference is that the focus flowed from language to mind instead of mind to language. It came from a branch of study called philosophical grammar, around three hundred years before Freud (Chomsky 15).

The “intent of philosophical grammar was to develop a psychological theory.” (Chomsky 18) It is this tradition that is responsible for the concepts of surface structure and deep structure, which are still used in the study of language today (Chomsky 18-19). However, the tradition died out because of its abstract nature, which did not lend itself well to study (Chomsky 20-21).

There were even earlier ideas about language and thought that are reflected in current theories. Juan Huarte, in the late sixteenth century, discussed three levels of intelligence. The first level, he claimed, is common to all beast and plants, including humans. The second is of a generative or creative nature, stemming from language and restricted to humans. The third is one of true creativity, where something is thought that has never been thought before (Chomsky 9-10).

A current model, by Derek Bickerton, is practically identical except the levels are levels of consciousness instead of intelligence. The first level includes all living organisms that can react to the outside world. It deals only with the here and now. The second level is “consciousness of consciousness”, which can only come from having a part of the brain that is not directly connected to the motor cortex, a part that represents ideas or thoughts with symbols.

Bickerton believes that this part of the brain that was developed “by and for language.” (Bickerton 96) It has the ability to observe the first level of consciousness while being disconnected from it. This is the “magical” consciousness that only we as humans experience (Bickerton 128-130). The third level is a type of meta-consciousness that is completely linguistic in nature. This level is where we can talk about and represent with symbols what it is like to be conscious of consciousness (Bickerton 132-135). It is also one of the principle concepts of NLP (Hall 23).

The theory of levels by Bickerton gives rise to the question of whether language is an invention of human intelligence, a defining trait, or something more profound. Humans share some of the same behaviors as animals. We eat, protect territory, and mate; but, in addition, we build buildings, do math, and a host of other things animals do not do.

Most theories cite our intelligence as the source of these differences from animals. Bickerton argues that language is the key difference and the one factor that distinguishes us from animals. Plus, language provided the cause for the intelligence that others point to as being the key difference. He also believes that, like intelligence, “consciousness as we know it may arise from an identical source.” (Bickerton 6)

Daniel Dennett echoes this concept when he says the size and complexity of our brain is not responsible for our advancements; the size and complexity of our brain made it possible to develop the “software”, or language, which is responsible for our major advancements (Dennett 190). It’s not that all human behavior and acts are represented in language but that all human behavior and acts are represented “in the neural workspace that was originally created by and for language.” (Bickerton 96)

It is this workspace that provides a place for mental rehearsal, a place in which behavior and acts are represented with symbols so that the corresponding motor functions are not activated (Bickerton 96-97). For example, we can think about climbing a tree without our legs and arms being activated while thinking it. If this was not the case, we could be driving down the road, think about climbing a tree, and find our arms and legs doing other than what is necessary for driving. Also, we can rehearse the movements of climbing a tree without having to have a tree present (in case we wanted to become proficient at climbing trees). This is made possible through language.

The reason it is possible is that language provides a mental representation of our world, and there are a large number of concepts that simply cannot be thought without language, like “trust” and “tomorrow” for example (Bickerton 20). Language provides our perception of the world. We think and communicate this perception through language (Bickerton 23). It gives us the ability to create the virtual reality, or maps of reality, that would not be possible otherwise (Dennett 22). None of these characteristics of language were decided on. “Language is the way it is because that is the only way the brain can do it.” (Bickerton 36)

What can be deduced from this is that if thought operates through language, and language has structure, then the structure of thought can be directly correlated with the structure of language (Bandler, The Structure 23). In other words, language reflects properties of the mind that can be examined in order to determine how human beliefs and knowledge are organized (Chomsky 6). Chomsky also noted,

there are striking similarities between the seventeenth-century climate of

opinion and that of contemporary cognitive psychology and linguistics. (15) It would, of course, be silly to predict the future of research… Nevertheless, it is fair to suppose that the major contribution of the study of language will lie in the understanding it can provide as to the character of mental processes and the structures they form and manipulate (Chomsky 66).

It should be noted that the work Chomsky is quoted from was published in 1968 (Chomsky VII), just a few years before John Grinder, assistant professor of linguistics at the University of California during that time, and Richard Bandler, a psychology student at the same university, published their first work on NLP (Walter). According to Hall, it was Chomsky’s work on grammar (deletion, generalization, and distortion specifically) that was used when they developed their theories of NLP (Hall 28).

NLP takes the concept of thought mirroring language to another level by not only recognizing the processes in the mind but by finding ways in which language can be used to change the processes. They reason that if language can create the “software”, or process, then language can be used to change it as well (Bandler, Frogs 6-10).

Another aspect of the mind NLP examines is how human experience is stored. NLP operates on the premise that human experience is stored in the mind in the form of representations (Walter). The “cinematic” experience developed through the senses is coded and a map of our experience is programmed with words (Hall 21,27). We then operate in the world according to the representation, or map, we have created in our mind. Our experience of reality comes from this representation (Hall 27).

In other words, “we create our reality through our perception. When we change our neuro-linguistic structure (how we use our language of the mind and our physiology), we change our reality and our experience.” (Hall 28) This is where the motif of ‘magic’ used in presenting NLP change patterns comes from (Hall 22).

The practical applications of NLP’s theories are manifested in multiple ways. A person can view a past experience within the “cinema” of their mind. The experience can then be edited, or “reframed” using language, or more specifically, NLP change patterns. The purpose is to take an experience that is manifesting itself in a way that is not benefiting the individual and change it into an experience that becomes a resource the individual can use in ways that enrich their current experience. The person’s worldview changes in a way that, when viewed from the standpoint of an observer, gives the appearance of ‘magic.’ (Hall 19-22)

The only problem with having a science based on the concept that reality is as we perceive it, is that it cannot be considered scientific, or true. It cannot be proven because the experiment decided upon will decide the outcome. Bandler and Grinder do not argue against this. They claim they are only interested in what works, not what can be proven scientifically (Bandler, Frogs 18). This is not unlike the abstract qualities of philosophical grammar. But they are not alone in this view.

James Deese says that introspection and experimentation are extremely limited as tools for discovering what happens in the mind. What is important, according to Deese, is what the mind does, not how it does it; and this is what can be discovered through the study of language (Deese 13).

Consider an example given by Bickerton that compares two sentences. The first: “The horse raced past the barn fell.” The Second: “The planet discovered by the astronomer disappeared.” Both are identical grammatically, but the first is not correct while the second is correct. How we know why the first one is wrong cannot be explained, yet most any native speaker of English knows that it does not make sense and the second one does (Bickerton 36).

NLP bypasses the why of traditional psychology and focuses on the how. It focuses on how the programming works and how it can be used to bring about change in individuals (Hall 309). It is not a hard wired system, or science. It is fluid and versatile like language. One of the primary reasons for the versatility of NLP lies in its concept of ‘modeling.’ (Bandler, Frogs 5)

Originally, Bandler and Grinder studied the techniques of three very successful therapists with the idea that there was something they did that could be accredited with the results they were achieving as opposed to believing the results were connected to them as individuals (Bandler, Frogs 5). The idea was that if they could observe and determine the processes the therapists were using then they could create a model of their technique. They could then mimic those same behaviors (behaviors being the patterns of both their verbal and body language) and elicit the same responses and outcomes as the people they modeled. It worked (Bandler, Frogs 6-8).

Some therapist report curing phobias with NLP in as little as thirty minutes (Edelman), but its use is not limited to therapy. It has worked for countless others in other fields (Walter). It is being used in the IT industry to improve the success of teams (Taylor). Other users range from coaches to politicians (Walter). In its simplest form, you simply find someone who is achieving what you wish to achieve and you model that person. It is not necessary to understand why the person being modeled is successful, only how they do it (Bandler, Frogs 6-8).

It is not within the scope of this article to discuss all of the many facets of NLP or its uses. The purpose of giving details of NLP is to show how the power of language has not only been investigated but also implemented to enrich people’s lives. The “real” world we live in has been altered beyond anything people could have imagined in the seventeenth-century when philosophical grammarians were asking questions about the value of language.

Major advancements in science, health care, engineering, and politics all have been made possible because of language, our one, and true defining trait. What can be learned from NLP is that our subjective world, the one each of us live in individually, can be advanced as well. What we tell ourselves on a daily basis impacts us. The language we use is important. The power of language should not be underestimated. Dennett explains it best:

When you talk to yourself, you don’t have to believe yourself in order for reactions to set in. There are bound to be some reactions, and they are bound to be relevant one way or the other to the meaning of the words with which you are stimulating yourself. Once the reactions start happening, they may lead your mind to places where you find yourself believing yourself after all – so be careful what you say to yourself (Dennett 302).

Works Cited

Bandler, Richard and John Grinder. Frogs into Princes: Neuro Linguistic Programming.

Ed. John O. Stevens. Moab, Utah: Real People Press, 1979.

-------- The Structure of Magic. Palo Alto, California: Science and Behavior Books,

1975.

Bickerton, Derek. Language and Human Behavior. Seattle: U of Washington P, 1995.

Chomsky, Noam. Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1968.

Deese, James. Thought Into Speech: The Psychology of a Language. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1984.

Dennett, Daniel C. Consciousness Explained. 1st. New York: Back Bay Books, 1991

Edelman, Michael, and Maralyn Green. "Fighting phobias." New Scientist 182.2446

(May 8, 2004): 31(1). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Lander University Library. 15 Apr. 2008 <http://0-find.galegroup.com.library.lander.edu:80/itx/sta

rt.do?prodId=EAIM>.

Frued, Sigmund. Sigmund Freud The Interpretation of Dreams. Ed. James Strachey. New York: Avon Books, 1965.

Hall, L. Michael. The Sourcebook of Magic: A Comprehensive Guide to NLP Change Patterns. 2nd. Bancyfelin, UK: Crown House, 2004.

Hamilton, Sue. Indian Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001.

Holy Bible. King James Text: Authorized King James Version. New York: Oxford UP,

1909.

Klages, Mary. "Jacques Lacan." 08 Oct. 2001. University of Colorado . 27 Jan 2008 <http://www.colorado.edu/English/courses/ENGL2012Klages/lacan.html>.

Taylor, David. "Playing success mind games." Computer Weekly (April 12,

2001): 70. Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Lander University Library.

15 Apr. 2008 <http://0-find.galegroup.com.library.lander.edu:80/itx/st

art.do?prodId=EAIM>.

Walter, Joanne, and Ardeshir Bayat. "Neurolinguistic programming: verbal communication. (Life)." Student BMJ (May 2003): 163(2). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Lander University Library. 15 Apr. 2008
<http://0-find.galegroup.com.library.lander.edu:80/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM>

The Tao of Science

2010-11-20T20:55:00.000-08:00

Some scientists, in their quest to unravel the mysteries of our world and the universe, have reached a point at which their observations and experiments are revealing data that they are incapable of fitting into a logical theory. Since science is based on producing logical conclusions, this is a serious problem. As a result, some scientists are seeking the advice of eastern mystics in an attempt to use what some are calling Buddhist logic.

Buddhist logic allows for something to be true, false, true and false or neither true or false. It sounds confusing but eastern mystics are very comfortable with it and quantum physicists have begun implementing it also (Coan 54). This is where science meets mysticism.

Scientists have always felt secure in the fact that the observer does not affect what is observed. In other words, it doesn’t matter who measures the weight of an object or what their feelings are, the results will be the same, but science has reached a level where this is not true anymore. One example is an experiment with light in which scientists conclude that it displays wave properties, or is made of waves, yet when a different experiment is performed to determine the path of the waves the results indicate that light is composed of particles instead. What property light displays will depend on which experiment is chosen; therefore, the reality of light is decided by the observer (Marvit).

This paradox may not seem to be connected to eastern mysticism but what it implies is. The nature of reality is brought into question. The following questions are asked: Is the world as we see it because we see it? Does perception alter reality? Would it still be light if no one were around to see it? Eastern mystics have thought upon these questions for over a thousand years and scientists are now forced to do the same.

Eastern mystics maintain the belief that nothing is as it seems. They believe that the true nature of reality can only be seen by lifting the veil of Maya (illusion) that is within the observer (Radhakrishnan 91, 353). Having adopted this same view, some scientists now believe that the instruments we use to measure various aspects of natural phenomenon cannot be trusted either, because they are extensions of ourselves and our consciousness. What is observed is still affected by the observer and the true nature of reality remains hidden (Csikszentmihalyi 61,62).

Another concept that runs parallel to eastern philosophy concerns particles. Physicists have found that two particles that were in contact with each other can be separated by any distance and any change brought about in one particle will occur in the other at the same instant (“Hinduism”). This goes against basic physics as information is presumably being transmitted instantaneously between the two particles. The information would have to be in the form of some type of energy that is moving faster than the speed of light and, according to Einstein, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. One physicist, Nic Herbert, proposes that, “…we have discovered an elemental oneness of the world. This oneness cannot be diminished by spatial separation” (“Hinduism”). Hindus agree.

According to Hinduism, there is a force or essence that permeates and is a part of everything. Hindus call it Brahman. They believe that all things are Brahman and that the true self, called atman, is Brahman also. Therefore, any appearance of separateness in the world is an illusion (Hamilton 126). Similarly, Professor Henry Stapp concludes that our consciousness can no longer be viewed as separate from the world outside us. What we think affects physical reality (“Hinduism”). From a Buddhist perspective we find the Avatamsaka Sutra states that everything is interconnected and one thing cannot be changed without it changing something else. They also state that this principle of interconnectedness transcends time and space (Loori).

What is further deduced by both physicists and eastern mystics from this interconnectedness is that each thing contains every other thing. Another way is to say that every particle reflects the whole universe (Coan). The Hindus explain the concept with the analogy of a seed containing all the information needed to produce a tree, the seed being the part and the tree being the whole (Radhakrishnan 69).

Buddhists believe that which route is taken up the mountain is unimportant, for all paths lead to the summit. This is how they explain recent interest from scientist in Buddhist philosophy. According to the Dalai Lama, “It is ironic and amusing that the physicist, approaching through an analysis which is purely from a physicists’ point of view confined to purely physical phenomenon seem to be arriving at a point where they may be just opening the door to Buddhist emptiness” (Marvit).

This “Buddhist emptiness” appears to be pointing to our own consciousness as the main hindrance to further progress in science. Western scientists have long held the egocentric view that their logic and linear thought is superior and more highly evolved than intuitive and non-linear thought. They have failed to consider that other forms of consciousness can evolve also (Coan). Intuitive and non-linear thought is now being considered in a different light and several scientists have already incorporated these thought processes with successful results.

One such scientist is Minh Duong-Van, a physicist from Stanford University and Lawrence Livermore Lab who specializes in chaos theory. His work includes experiments in controlling chaos in lasers and heart defibrillation. He applies the Buddhist principle of “working from the inside out, of beginning with ‘the projector, not the projected.’” Minh speaks of meditating to sense the underlying fluctuation of the universe and compares the pulsing of matter and antimatter to the Buddhist concept of form and emptiness. He feels that nonlinear equations are more reflective of life than the cause and effect concept of linear equations and offers the same reasoning for his fondness of Buddhism (Roether).

Even with seemingly unconventional ideas, Minh blends in well with his peers. Biologist Rupert Sheldrake does not fare as well. His credentials include a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Cabridge University and studies in philosophy at Harvard, but his ideas are considered controversial by most. Sheldrake’s interest in Hinduism didn’t stem from a desire to solve complex equations. His interest is a result of exposure to the spiritual environment in India while working as a plant physiologist and, at one point, living in a religious community called an ashram (Hawthore).

Sheldrake became aware of various phenomenons while in India and after leaving he decided to test his theories about these phenomenon using modern science. Much of Sheldrake’s work relates the eastern concept of interconnectedness to life forms. He contends that all living and non-living things are connected across space and time with what he calls “morphic fields.” One of his areas of study involves the ability of people to sense when someone is staring at them from behind and he claims to have performed multiple tests that prove this ability exist. He hypothesizes that the mind extends beyond the brain, a concept readily accepted by Buddhists and Hindus alike (Hawthore).

This mixing of religion and science seems alien to most of us in a predominately Christian society where science has long been at odds with the church. In order to fully understand this strange union the religions in question should be looked at. Hinduism and Buddhism differ greatly from a Christian concept of religion. Although they have their gods and rituals they also allow for the absence of both. At the end of the day both will say that the only requirement for membership is a desire to find the truth. Many of the practitioners of eastern religion will teach their doctrine and, in the same breath, question it. Nowhere is this more evident than in the monasteries of Tibetan Buddhists who are now studying physics.

Buddhists and Hindus both consider studying the physical world as being no different than studying the abstract. They are completely at ease with the union even though their focus for the past thousand years has been primarily on the abstract. And with their recent venture into physics, it would seem that they see a need for broadening their horizons also.

One day we may find that this recent interest in eastern mysticism is no more than a passing trend in the scientific community. We may even view it as an attempt for scientists to regain something that many feel has been lost in a totally analytical approach to truth. On the other hand, we may witness a complete paradigm shift. I think a verse from the Vedas would sum it up best. According to the sacred scripture, “He who surveys it in the highest heaven, he knows, or haply he may know not” (Radhakrishnan 24).

Works Cited

Coan, Richard W. Human Consciousness and its Evolution. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1987.

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. The Evolving Self: A Psychology for the Third Millennium.

New York: HarperCollins, 1993.

Hamilton, Sue. Indian Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford UP,

2001.

Hawthore, Mark. "Rethinking Science." Hinduism Today Sept./Oct. 2001 SIRS

Renaissance. SIRS Knowledge Source. Lander University. 20 Apr 2005

<http://0-www.sirs.com.library.edu:80>.

"Hinduism & Quantum Physics." Understanding Hinduism. 15 Apr. 2005

<http://hinduism.co.za/hinduism.htm>.

Loori, John Daido. "The World Honored One's Intimate Speech." Mountain Record: The

Zen Practitioner's Journal 23 (1999). 16 Apr 2005 <http://www.mro.org/zmm/teachings/daido/teisho17.php>.

Marvit, Maclen. "Dalai Lama Host Mind and Life Conference." Mind and Life

Conference 1997. January 1998. Kira Institute. 15 Apr. 2005

<http://www.sns.ias.edu/~piet/act/nat/dalai/tibrev.html>.

Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli, and Charles A. Moore, eds.

A Sourcebook In Indian Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1989.

Roether, Barbara. "The Heartbeat Sutra: Chaos Theory, Karma, and Other Fluctuations."

Tricycle 1995 SIRS Renaissance. SIRS Knowledge Source. Lander University. 17 Apr 2005 http://0-www.sirs.com.library.edu:80.

Conversation with Mysterious Visitor while Camping

2010-11-08T12:07:00.000-08:00

From conversation with visitor while camping at Tiger Cove Campground

click here to see the story of our travel to Pendleton SC, and our camping at Tiger Grove)

Our mysterious visitor never gave his name, and he never asked for ours. It is a curious fact that I never noticed until after he was gone. Our conversation started after we ate. I am writing the conversation strictly from memory, so I beg the old man's forgiveness in advance for any minor inaccuracies. I am confident, however, that I have recorded the essence of the conversation, and my Bella can attest to this as well. Also, I did not attempt to quote his exact dialect, as it was a bit alien to me.

The old man told us he had no family to speak of, that they had all passed away. He spent his days wondering, always on the move. He said he has never missed a meal and has all he needs in his bag. I didn't ask him why he was without a home, and neither did he volunteer it. Somehow, I felt it would be rude. I think you will see from our conversation that he was intelligent, but not necessarily a scholar. Or, at least, he did not betray himself as such.

This is how it went, after a bit of small talk that is. How it came to this subject I am not quite sure.

He started by saying, “You can only understand God by first understanding God's manifestations, God's creations, in case the term suits you better, and you can only understand God's creations by realizing you are God and you are God's manifestation.”

“I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean to say I am my own God?” I asked.

“You are your own God if that is how you have created your life. It is a precarious position to take to say you are God, with a capital 'G' as in God of all things,” said the old man.

“But how can you be God and not be God of all things? Is there not one God?” Bella asked.

“There is only one God, but there are innumerable manifestations of that one God. Do you agree with that?” said the old man.

“Explain what you mean by manifestations,” Bella said.

“I mean creations, but creations that reflect their creator, creations that are visible expressions of their creator. For example, in the Bible, John 1:1, it says, 'In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.' Here, 'word' means an expression of a thought. That's what a word is. It is an expression of the thought in your mind, and so you could say that in the beginning was the expression of a thought, and that expression of thought was with God, and that expression of thought was God.

The world you see, the person you are, the air you breathe, is an expression of a thought, and that expression of thought is with God, or it is God's thought, and that expression of thought is God. You are here, you are with God, and you are God. Think about the words I am speaking. They are expressions of my thought. They reflect my thoughts. They ARE my thoughts. And what am 'I' but my thoughts? So, you are God's word. You reflect God's thoughts. You ARE God's thoughts.”

“I will agree that my words ARE my thoughts, and my thoughts make up who I am, I will even say my words are manifestations of me. But my words are not Me. They have no power over Me. They cannot control or influence Me or act on my behalf. So in that sense, to say we are God means nothing. You say we are God, but what influence do we have on God if we are to God what our words are to us?”

I asked.

“But your words do have control over you. Yes, you create the thoughts, express the thoughts, but the thoughts and the expression of those thoughts affect you. Your words affect you. You cannot separate yourself from them. For example, if you pay someone a compliment, you feel good. You feel good about that person and about yourself for making the compliment. Your words have affected you, because they ARE you.

If you say something hurtful to someone, you feel bad, or if you are mean spirited you may feel excited. Either way, your words have affected you, not only your feelings but your physical self as well. Your physiology changes. Your body produces chemicals to cause emotions and feelings. You are your words. Contrary to the old saying, you are not what you eat, but you are what you say. As said in the Bible, Mathew 15:11 'Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.'

So, when you see someone always speaking harshly to others, you'll notice it affects how they look, it affects even their health,” said the old man.

“But do they speak harshly because of their constitution or is their constitution sour because of their words?” asked Bella.

“Yes, which controls? Which causes which? In other words, can someone simply change how they speak and it change who they are? Can someone speak in a way that does not come natural and it change their constitution? Or does the person have to have an inward change first and then as a result the way they speak changes?” I asked.

“But you forget. It is one and the same. We are our words, our words are us. You cannot separate the two. It is only when you believe the two are separate that you are in turmoil. Remember, the suffering of hell does not come from the eternal fires but from the separation of the created from the creator. When we separate ourselves from our creation, our words, when we believe our words are not us, when we do not take responsibility for our words and speak them carelessly, we create our own hell.

When we say to someone 'I hate you', then we are hate. When we say to someone 'I love you', then we are love. And when we look in the mirror and say to ourselves 'I hate you', then God becomes hate. This is another example of the word affecting the speaker of the word. The creation affecting the creator. Look at anyone who hates himself, you'll find that he believes God to be a monster. Or he may even deny the existence of God, which is the separation I mentioned earlier. He is saying God is not responsible for his creation; he is saying that he is not God and God is not him. This is the real hell, not eternal fires,” said the old man.

“Let me see if I have this right. I can change my words and thereby change myself; I can change myself and thereby change God?” Bella asked.

“Yes, where is the thing that initiates the change though? What starts the change? In order to change what words I speak I have to decide to do it, and that would mean I have already changed before the words come out. I can't change my words without changing my mind first. What changes my mind?” I asked.

“Ah, but you just answered your question. All you have to do is accept that your words and your Self are one and the same, accept that you and God are one and the same. As soon as you accept this truth, you have the power to change. But until you believe, until you accept it, you are powerless over your life because you believe you are separate from God. If you believe you cannot change until God decides to change first, you are like the person who believes his words cannot change until he first changes his mind. You are saying the two are separate.

It's simply a matter of accepting the power you already have. That is the difference between sinner and saint, between the joyful man and the sorrowful man. Look at it this way. Everything we think is a prayer. To truly accept God, to become one with God, you have to make a conscious decision on what these prayers are. It's not just when we sit down for the purpose of praying. Think of that as practice.

Remember what Jesus said, 'Seek and you shall find, ask and it shall be given.' What are you seeking in your mind? What are you asking? Because, you will find what you seek. What you ask shall be given. Imagine the man who asks, 'What will I do if I lose my job?' This man will lose his job; because, that is what he is seeking, asking, praying,” said the old man.

There was much more, and perhaps I will post more of it in future post.

Click here to return to the travel story from which this comes.

All material on this page is the property of the author and photographer. Feel free to use quotes (less than 50 words) on websites and printed material as long as a working link back to this site is placed directly next to the quote. Contact us at pykesavage@yahoo.com for permission to use photos or if you would like Pyke and Bella to visit your area. Pyke and Bella are also available for hire to do photos and/or writing assignments.

Are You Saved?

2010-10-10T10:05:00.000-07:00

Are You Saved?

How does one respond to such a question? It is a presumptuous one that assumes you share the same belief system as the person who asks the question, and also, implying in some way that you should. Also, no answer seems to be sufficient to such a question. Even if you answer “yes,” you may then be asked “Are you sure?” – which is just a further display of the questioner’s arrogance in believing that not only does he or she have the market cornered on religion but that he or she is the supreme owner of the “truth” and only he or she can discern where you stand in the grand order of God’s plan.

Debates with such people are practically impossible, impossible because they only allow a limited amount of information to be used for premises in the argument. By limited information I mean information that falls within or agrees with their belief system, anything else is dismissed as irrelevant or concluded to be “questioning God’s word.” This of course is deemed heretical. But let me clarify what I mean by debate. I don’t mean to persuade anyone to believe as I do. I have no need to do so, namely because there is little that I believe to be absolute truth. I don’t claim to be so supreme that I can profess ownership of the absolute truth, and the lack of the absolute truth is the only truth that I am fairly certain about.

However, I do have beliefs. I have beliefs based on my life experience. They are true to me, but I don’t presume that they are true to others or that they should be true to others. I believe there is more to this world than what our five senses perceive. I believe there are entities that have “intelligence” and they take interest in us. I believe there is an essence that permeates and is a part of everything. Taoist would call it Tao, Hindus – Brahman, Christians – Holy Spirit, and Luke Sky Walker – the Force. I believe different cultures, different people, each explains this ineffable “it” (a.k.a. God) in a way that allows them to relate to something so un-explainable. I also believe these beliefs directly effect how these mysteries are manifested to and explained by the individual. I believe the world is as we see it, because we see it. In other words, we create reality through perception – or perception alters reality.

Here is an example. The Sioux Indians believed evil spirits could make a person ill. They believed that burning Sage in their dwelling would drive away evil spirits. In modern times we explain it differently. We believe that germs can make a person ill. We believe, and have scientifically proven, that Sage kills germs (like the Lysol spray we use). Aren’t both of these beliefs true? Aren’t they just two different ways of explaining the same truth? It makes me question how many other beliefs we may find to be the same way. After all, Quantum Physicists have been seeking answers from Tibetan Buddhists for some time now in order to better understand certain phenomenon that don’t reconcile with Aristotelian logic. They are now implementing Buddhist logic.

Now that I have shared some of my beliefs I will get back to the debate. But first, let me say something about the Christian religion, which may be seen as the reason for my writing this essay. It is not the reason. A certain fellow, whom I will call “the Dictator”, is the reason, and I would like to thank him for motivating me. The Dictator asked me the question I referred to earlier about being saved, and there are many like him in the area in which I live. I don’t believe the Dictator represents the Christian religion in the same spirit that Jesus intended. I have read the Bible and have paid close attention to the teachings of Jesus. I believe if I had lived during his time, I probably would have hung out with Jesus. I think Jesus is cool! I think those who practice a religion based on his teachings practice a beautiful religion.

I have a couple of friends who represent it very beautifully. I have one friend who, when he shares with me his faith in Jesus, his faith is so strong it melts me. It makes me want to find Jesus and embrace him. Another friend, who is a Christian, loves to talk about religion, especially his. But he never says his belief system is the only way or that mine is wrong. He is so enthusiastic and excited when he shares his faith with me that it makes me admire him more for his convictions. I don’t share my friends’ beliefs in the way of doctrine, at least not all of them, but in spirit we are the same.

Now, back to the debate I mentioned. My response to the Dictator’s question about being saved was “I don’t share that same belief system.” This didn’t sit well with him. He proceeded with a long, apparently well rehearsed, bombard of rhetoric that was, I believe, meant to show me the error of my way. However, It felt more like a hard sale by a pushy salesman, and as a result I felt very uncomfortable and almost converted just so he would leave me alone. He insinuated that if I were intelligent I would see that what he was saying was not only reasonable but was also the gospel truth. It is a very good sales technique. Those who have read sales books or have been in the business know what I mean. But I will argue that what he said can be reasoned differently.

I will start with the watchmaker theory. The reasoning is this: where there is a design there is a designer. He used the example of a house. He said that when he looks at a house he doesn’t believe it simply appeared from nowhere. He said no intelligent person would believe that. His reasoning is that first the house is designed and then someone builds it. It has a creator. And so, he said, it is reasonable to conclude that we are of a very complicated design and so we have a designer, a creator.

I agree that this is a valid argument, but that in itself doesn’t make it a true one. There are other things to consider. I don’t believe that reasoning and logic are the answer for everything, and using them to prove ideas about things that are not in the realm of reason and logic is like trying to prove love exists by using a math formula; however, I will use it anyway.

I ask the question why. Why do we build a house? Because we have needs. We build a house for shelter, a watch to tell time. We have needs because we are not sufficient within ourselves. It takes things outside of us to keep us alive, for us to exist. Does that mean that God, the creator, is not complete? Does God have needs? Can God exist without fulfilling those needs? Is that why God creates? Some Hindus argue that if there were a God who was complete, perfect, and all-powerful then such a god would not create us. It would have no desire or need to do so.

The next line of argument the Dictator put forth to support his beliefs was the Bible. Apparently someone has told him that the Bible is the very word of God, he believed it, and so he concludes it must be true. For hundreds of years a vast majority of people believed the Sun revolved around the Earth. It was not true. This is where he throws all reason out the window and goes strictly on authority, his authority; because, not only would he have me believe that the Bible is the word of God (because someone told him it was), but he also professes that he has some sort of divine ability to interpret this sacred text that exceeds my abilities to do so. He does not believe that he could be wrong. He does not believe the Bible could be wrong either. The fact that the Bible has been interpreted in many different ways, by many different people in various times in history is, I can only assume, irrelevant in his eyes. I would also assume that he believes he has divine abilities that supersede those people as well.

For argument sake, let us assume that the Bible is the word of God, and assume also that God, a creator, exist. The Bible, I think most reasonably intelligent people would say, is contradictory. Anyone who doubts this could read the last section of each of the gospels. Each one tells a slightly different version of the account of the resurrection. This is usually dismissed by saying that eyewitness accounts often differ slightly. This is true. It is also true that eyewitnesses sometimes make huge mistakes, but that is beside the point because I was told that the Bible was the un-erring word of God. Is it the un-erring word of God or eyewitness accounts? Is it a mistake or is God contradictory? Or is it all of the above? In my experience, questions like these often are answered with, “You just have to believe, don’t question God.”

I am sorry, but I don’t believe everything I am told and God hasn’t made it a point to come to me in person and tell me anything yet. Buddha never asked anyone to believe him. He instructed people to do the opposite, to find out for themselves. This sounds like good advice to me and so I will do the same. I admit I could be wrong. Don’t believe what I say. Find out for yourself.

I will also say that I am not totally critical of the Dictator. I think the Dictator does want to help people. I think he is searching for the truth and if his path fails to take him to enlightenment, perhaps in the next life it will. I also think the Dictator hurts more people than he helps. His belief system excludes many people. His words are spoken with authority and not humility (much like the Pharisees of Christ’s time). He turns more people away than he draws in. His love appears conditional. It is dependent upon the other person accepting his beliefs. I think Jesus would be disappointed in his lack of humility and love for all people, and I am without doubt that Jesus would see vast shortcomings on my part as well. However, I continue to strive to be more loving and accepting of others. In time I may even have a better attitude toward the Dictator. I am sure Jesus would advise it.

Find Your Self -- Kill the Imposter

2010-10-04T10:53:00.000-07:00

Find Your Self – Kill the Imposter

Ego Death and the Way of Two Immortal Masters

The concept of “ego death” has gained the attention of a relatively recent East-meets-West brand of spirituality in Western culture. Authors’ views on the subject are varied but they typically attribute the concept to Eastern religions, Buddhism and Hinduism primarily (Rindfleish). In the current religious atmosphere, this may be true; however, in a different context, Christianity reflects an equal amount of elements that signify ego death. The elements can be found in the teachings of Jesus and in other supporting scriptures that expound upon his teachings and discuss the early church. In this same context, Hinduism at the time of Buddha did not support the concept of ego death, and its current presence is a more recent addition.

Some scholars would point out that any two religions could be shown as similar; one only needs to choose a position of interpretation among the many positions of each (Eckel 43). I agree, and yet, teasing meanings out of texts in order for them to fit current ideologies and agendas is business as usual for most scholars and religious leaders alike. It is only when others with opposing views do it that they point it out. Let me be clear in saying that I am no different; my purpose, however, is not to lay claim to a truth but only offer a possibility of a truth that is as equally valid as any that would oppose it. The importance of viewing Christianity and Buddhism in this context is not only to show the similarities these two religions share at their core but primarily to give a richer interpretation of ego death and the resulting implications of its philosophy.

Upon first inspection it would appear that the teachings of Jesus and Buddha are fundamentally different. Buddha taught a doctrine of no-self, or no eternal self, and Jesus spoke of eternal life (Eckel 43-44). Buddha preached that liberation from suffering can only be achieved by one’s own means without the help of friend or deity, and Christians teach salvation can only come from a savior (Eckel 44). I disagree with these arguments but will return to it later. First, one has to consider the audience. Jesus and Buddha spoke in terms that were relevant to the people they were addressing; people who spoke different languages, had different customs, and radically different religious backgrounds – Judaic and Hindu, respectively (Amore 41-42). It was their own religious backgrounds that offered the largest hurdles when teaching their doctrines; and, at the same time, controlled how they would have to shape their teachings in order to construct a model of ego death that was ascertainable to their current and prospective followers.

Buddha was confronted with a tradition rich in metaphysical philosophy and ritual (Appleton 28). One story tells of a man concerned with the nature of his soul. He asked Buddha whether his soul was permanent or impermanent, along with other questions of a similarly difficult nature. Buddha compared him to a man who has been shot with an arrow but wishes to know who shot it before he will allow the surgeon to remove it and relieve his suffering. Jesus was constantly confronted with the legalistic nature of Judaism. When he healed a man on the Sabbath he was criticized by the religious leaders for not following the law. He pointed out the illogical nature of their criticism by making reference to an analogy of an ox that has fallen into a ditch on the Sabbath and must be relieved of its suffering immediately, regardless of the law.

Both were confronted with a “slavish adherence to authority and tradition” that in the context of Hinduism “had justified and perpetuated the privilege and dominance of the ruling Brahman class” and in the context of Judaism had elevated the priestly classes of the Sadducees and Pharisees (Rubin 16). The result was a “sterile substitute for authentic religious experience” that neither Jesus nor Buddha agreed with (Rubin 16). Buddha approached religion in a therapeutic and practical way (Rubin 16). Jesus, in the eyes of Paul, showed that followers did not have to be bound by the laws of Judaism; they could follow the “lead of the spirit of God.” (Molloy 364)

What is garnered from these comparisons is that Jesus is often many things to many people (Gilkey 193). No less can be said of Buddhism. Buddhist teachings give multiple views, sometimes contradictory (Gomez 144). Nonetheless, according to the 14^th Dalai Lama, ‘when we speak of religion we need not refer to deeper philosophical issues. Compassion is the real essence of religion.’ (Lopez 215) It is from this spirit of universal love, taught by both Jesus and Buddha, that I will hinge the concept of ego death (Molloy 357-358).

A transcendence of ego, however, cannot be understood or experienced without first defining it (Ulanov 124). The core idea is that there is a Self (a true nature) and there is an ego (an illusory self). We are born only with a Self and a potential ego. The Self is more than the sum of our experiences; it is made up of something inherited as well, something “transpersonal” (Edinger 3). The Self is the part where God and man meet, the totality prior to ego, a necessary paradox (Edinger 3-5). The ego, on the other hand, evolves. It is made by the Self; it is the creation, not the creator. As man is created in the image of God, so ego is created in the image of Self (Edinger 38).

Ego manifests itself in conscious thought. It is “the ‘you’ that you usually think you are.” (Gunaratana 30) The “ego is nothing more than a set of reactions and mental images that are artificially pasted to the flowing process of pure awareness.” (Gunaratana 30) Pure awareness is realized by destroying ego (Gunaratana 31). According to Theravada Buddhism, pure awareness is achieved through vipassana meditation. Over time, the practitioner can discern true reality. They realize the self they believed was real is only a mental construct, not an eternal being (Gunaratana 37). Once they see through this illusion of self, they are no longer controlled by it (Gunaratana 38). This is the no-self taught by Buddha.

The ego may not be Self, and in theory does not exist in reality; nevertheless, it can sometimes inflate to the point that it makes itself larger than Self (Edinger 7). Inflation of the ego equals sin in Christianity. The beatitudes, for example, illustrate the importance of the non-inflated ego (Edinger 34). Saint Augustine relates the concept of sin to aspirations of deification (Edinger 34). He says, “Grief pines away at the loss of things in which the desire delighted; this is because it would like nothing to be taken away, just as nothing can be taken away from you (God).” (Saint Augustine 34) Augustine is pointing out that the cause of grief, or suffering, is the result of a desire for permanence, a permanence that can only be experienced by an eternal God (Edinger 34). Relate this to the teaching of Buddha that says there is no eternal self, and that suffering comes from the belief in a permanent self. Desiring a permanent self is then equivalent to inflating the ego to God-size proportions (Edinger 34-35). Augustine says, “So all men who put themselves far from you (God) and set themselves up against you (God) are in fact attempting awkwardly to be like you (God).” (Saint Augustine 34)

The ego then is not only something to be aware of but something which one must deflate. The demands of the ego-reality – security, achievements, etc. – can utterly dominate an individual (Ulanov 125). But a natural cycle of inflation then deflation occurs without awareness. Deflation can mirror death. “In disappointments we come close to the experience of death, the non-recognition of our ego; yet we do not actually die but learn that real death does not destroy us.” (Grote) The cycle of ego inflation then deflation bears a resemblance to the philosophy of birth and re-birth in Buddhism (Edinger 41-42). “Once the ego has reached a certain level of development, it does not have to continue this repetitious cycle, at least not in the same way. The cycle is then replaced by a more or less conscious dialogue between ego and Self.” (Edinger 42) It is not unlike enlightenment in Buddhism where an individual is liberated from the cycle of re-birth.

Buddha taught “the idea of self is an imaginary, false belief which has no corresponding reality, and it produces harmful thoughts of ‘me’ and ‘mine’, selfish desire, craving, attachment, hatred, ill-will, conceit, pride, egoism…” (Appleton 55-56) On the other hand, Jesus did not teach no-self or ego death explicitly. He did, however, make statements such as the kingdom of God is within, alluding to a higher or truer reality (Appleton 43). He also made other statements that have a “no-self” ring to them; for example – the most powerful is powerless, self-realization comes from self-denial, to be free you must be a slave, to find life you must lose it (Lopez 10). To Nicodemus, he said that a person must be born again if he wants to see or enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Until this death of the old self and birth of the new takes place, a man cannot experience his true nature (Appleton 85). Jesus expresses this sentiment again when he says, ‘If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.’ (Appleton 69) To experience Self, you must destroy the self.

This “self-destruction” is not a literal self-abuse or self-defilement. It does not consist of asceticism, self-mortification, over-indulgence or abuse of intoxicants. The primary tool of ego killing is love. Buddha taught that you must rid yourself of all “hatred, resentment, or even anger.” (Amore 61) To even judge someone as having done a wrong to you shows your mind is setting itself up to hate. Hatred, Buddha said, only ceases with love (Amore 61). Likewise, Jesus said, ‘But I say unto you that hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you…’ (Amore 62)

The connection between love and ego death is an elusive but simple one. Seeing through ego requires pure awareness. In order to mobilize pure awareness, ego cannot be in charge. That is why it is important to weaken ego from the start by attacking its primary operating systems – hatred and greed. This is accomplished by canceling them with their opposites – love and charity (Gunaratana 89-90). The reason it is necessary to love one’s enemies and wish good things for them is that hate, even when justified, clouds the mind and poisons the body (Gunaratana 94-95). Enemies in this sense are valued. In spite of their intentions, they are useful in that they teach tolerance and patience, traits necessary for yet another aspect of ego death – pure mind (Gyatso 223).

Jesus and Buddha both called for a mind so composed that it did not anger (Amore 63). Both taught using a parable of a well-built house not affected by outside forces. In this way there is no “breaking in of anger, violence, lust, slander, evil-doing, or other manifestations of spiritual darkness.” (Amore 80) This same mind is content with whatever happens. Jesus said to not be anxious about what you will eat or wear; both Jesus and Buddha said to look to the birds in the air and study their lack of concern (Amore 68). An anxious person is “attached.” Birds are free.

Freedom from a life of discontent, filled with suffering, is achieved through enlightenment — a “permanent transformation of consciousness.” (Rubin 84) Enlightenment “promises to eliminate the egoism, desire, and fear that most people feel mired in.” (Rubin 85) It is accomplished through meditation (Rubin 85). Though Jesus never explicitly mentions meditation, meditation is not limited in practice to Buddhism. One form of meditation used by some Christians has been around since the time of the Apostles; it is called centering prayer. According to modern day practitioners, ‘…it’s like taking a vacation from the false self.’ (Molloy 428) A recent study of vipassana meditation (primarily practiced by Theravada Buddhist) showed it is a viable tool for deconstructing the ego. The results demonstrated that “self-centered cravings are relinquished … efforts to correct personal shortcomings were enhanced and self-criticism decreased.” The psychological changes were “similar to those reported following conversion or involvement in theistic religions.” (Emavarahana)

This is not to say that Jesus and Buddha were mere psychologist or that ego is only determined within the context of the self; society plays a part, and Buddha and Jesus realized a religious support system was necessary. For Christians it is the church, for Buddhist it is the Sangha. The principle function of all religious communities (excluding those of a corrupted nature) is to “keep the individual (ego) related to the deity (Self),” and it is the “best collective protection available against both inflation and alienation.” (Edinger 64) Every society has had some type of religious system in place to provide for these needs and it is unlikely one could survive without it (Edinger 64). When these systems are not in place “the ego is likely to think of itself as everything or as nothing.” (Edinger 64) It will then focus its energy into other aspects of life or other institutions, such as career, politics, or social movements. The results are racism, Nazism, communism and workaholic-consumerism (Edinger 64-65). These outlets become charged with religious meaning (Edinger 65).

While religious institutions were in place during the time of Jesus and Buddha, they failed to provide a balance between ego and Self. The existing religions were overcome with ego inflation. The symptoms expressed themselves in the form of legalism in the Judaic faith, with Sadducees to preside over the people; and the caste system in the Hindu faith, with Brahmin priest to preside over them. The two Masters provided what the religious institutions of their day had not; a personal relationship with Self (God), and a community to support it (Edinger 65).

The role of a religious community cannot be underestimated in regards to ego death. Ego-Self interaction, in reality, would be better represented as ego-Self-others. ‘The ego is your self-image; it is your social mask; it is the role you are playing. Your social mask thrives on approval. It wants control, and it is sustained by power, because it lives in fear.’ (Rindfleish 70) It is a “…fragile and dependent presence, dependent on the approval of others.” It is precisely those “others” that one surrounds him/herself with that can affect whether an ego is inflated, deflated, destroyed or centered. Consider our own society as an example. Conduct is guided by “individualistic and … self-centered needs and attitudes” which has led to “self-absorption and a sense of personal alienation” (Rubin 28); alienation that is caused not by suffering but by the act of trying to eliminate or ignore suffering. The suffering has to be felt first and made real before it can be healed (Ulanov 128-129). One must come to know their Self before he or she can know the divine. In the words of Buddha and Saint Paul, you must ‘work out your own salvation…’ (Appleton 37)

Works Cited

Amore, Roy C. Two Masters, One Message. Nashville: Parthenon Press, 1978.

Appleton, George. On the Eightfold Path: Christian Presence Amid Buddhism. New

York: Oxford UP, 1961.

Eckel, Malcom David. “Perspectives on the Buddhist-Christian Dialogue.” Lopez and

Rockefeller 43-62.

Edinger, Edward F. The Ego and Archetype: Individuation and the Religious Function

of the Psyche. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1972.

Emavardhana, Tipawadee, and Christopher D. Tori.. "Changes in Self-Concept, Ego Defense Mechanism, and Religiosity Following Seven-day Vipassana Meditation Retreats." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 36.2 (June 1997): 194. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection. EBSCO. Lander University, Greenwood, SC. 20 Oct. 2008 <http://0-search.ebscohost.com.library.lander.edu:80/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pbh&AN=9709173213&site=ehost-live>.

Gilkey, Langdon. “The Meaning of Jesus the Christ.” Lopez and Rockefeller 193-207.

Gomez, Luis O. “From the Extraordinary to the Ordinary: Images of the Bodhisattva in

East Asia.” Lopez and Rockefeller 141-191.

Grote, James. “Death and the Heresy of Success.” Spirituality Today. Vol. 37. (Spring

1985): 27-32. 21 Nov. 2008 <http://www.spiritualitytoday.org/spir2day/85371

3grote.html>

Gunaratana, Bhante Henepola. Mindfulness in Plain English. Boston: Wisdom

Publications, 2002.

Gyatso, Tenzin His Holiness the 14^th Dalai Lama. “The Practices of Bodhisattvas.”

Trans. Jeffrey Hopkins. Lopez and Rockefeller 217-227.

Lopez, Donald S. Jr. , and Steven S. Rockefeller, eds. The Christ and The Bodhisattva.

New York: State University of NY Press , 1987.

Lopez, Donald S. Jr. “The Dalai Lama of Tibet.” Lopez and Rockefeller 209-216.

Molloy, Michael. Experiencing the World’s Religions: Tradition, Challenge, and Change.

4^th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008.

Rindfleish, Jennifer. "THE “DEATH OF THE EGO” IN EAST-MEETS-WEST

SPIRITUALITY: DIVERSE VIEWS FROM PROMINENT AUTHORS." Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 42.1 (Mar. 2007): 65-76. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Lander University, Greenwood, SC. 4 Nov. 2008 <http://0-search.ebscohost.com.library.lander.edu/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=aph&AN=24165513&site=ehost-live>.

Rubin, Jeffrey B. Psychotherapy and Buddhism: Toward an Integration. New York:

Plenum Press, 1996.

Saint Augustine. The Confessions of Saint Augustine. Trans. Rex Warner. New York:

Penguin Group, 1963.

Ulanov, Ann Belford. “The God You Touch.” Lopez and Rockefeller 117-139.