The intellectually elite ego adores the concepts of “non-duality” and "enlightenment." That’s because these concepts allow the ego to make compromises with its own personal constructs of 'reality.'
The ego compromises with truth by allowing itself to ‘realize’ only parts of the truth, while still embracing parts of the illusion. Now you need not awaken from the “dream” all at once and truth can be served up in convenient bite size slices; just take what you want and save the rest for later. It's all up to you.
The problem is that this denies the fact that it’s either all true or all not true. You can’t pick and choose what you want to be true since that merely makes it all not true. No one can make compromises with truth.
Except for the Dream Police who know how to compromise with truth and will teach you the skills needed to make anything "true."
So, when you awoke from the dream was your ‘self’ still affixed to a body that has needs? Well then, most likely you had a fantastic neurochemical whizbang - natural, no drugs - but no “awakening.”
But don’t fret, because the “Dream Police” are here to help. Here’s an email I received from Integral Life:
Dear friend,
I am excited to reach out to you since you listened last year to Ken Wilber and Bill Harris discuss Eckhart Tolle’s The Power of Now. The Power of Now is a truly sensational book and in 2003 was the catalyst for my own spiritual awakening to what Ken spoke of as a "non-dual" state of consciousness. I walked around San Francisco for 3 days in a state of pure bliss and mystical union (which gradually diminished over the following 4 months)[funny how it always seems to “diminish”]. It was a profound and life-altering experience (and as a deeply rational entrepreneur, a bit of a surprise, to say the least).
Now, millions of others have heard the story of how Eckhart Tolle awakened to this same super-conscious state – a timeless, transcendental state that mystics maintain is the doorway to liberation. Although it is trite, accessing this state of presence is indeed about waking up. (Waking up to what? To what is real, to who you really are. A reality which you swim in every moment, now, and now, and now...)
But here's what's interesting: the mystics were only half-right.
Because even after my awakening, I still faced the challenge of tapping into my deepest passion. I kept wondering, how can I simultaneously be at peace and be fully engaged in my life with passion? The peace of being versus the passion of becoming. This paradox didn't make sense to me until I found Integral...
What I learned from Ken's integral map is that while a state of presence is a key spiritual teaching of major religious traditions and is a true doorway to liberation, there are actually two forms of enlightenment and only one has to do with my "state" of consciousness. The other has to do with my "stage" of consciousness, and how I interpret this liberating state of presence will be dictated by my stage of consciousness development.
You see, my state of consciousness has to do with my being, but my stage of consciousness has to do with becoming. And my life is a calling to do both simultaneously!
According to this 'awakened guy,' your reward for finally awakening to “truth,” is to learn how to become more "passionate" about the illusion, but only because you're "awakening" is a "non-dual state of consciousness." Now you can blissfully have your cake and eat it too, because there are two forms of "enlightenment" and "the mystics were only half right."
Stupid mystics!
Being is boring, but “becoming” is where it's at, yo!
Good grief, “Two forms of enlightenment”? Really!? I always thought enlightenment was about “awakening” from the illusion to realize truth - one and done!
But not for the “Dream Police.” In fact, for the Dream Police ('awakened guys') there are hundreds of enlightenment "forms." In fact, there are levels and degrees, stages, tiers, quadrants, states, etc, etc, etc, on and on, ad infinitum.
The Dream Police recognize that we live in a postmodern technological 'world' that thrives on conspicuous consumption and, as discriminating consumers, we should have as many “enlightenment” products that the 'dream' can offer...
...in order to awaken from the dream.
Yet, more importantly, the Dream Police know that egos don’t want to awaken to a 'truth' completely devoid of all illusion. Because, if the body is part of the illusion, when truth finally dawns on you, ‘poof’… the body’s gone. I mean, if it’s part of the illusion, how could it stay around when truth comes to town? But then, without the body, how will you enjoy great sex or decent glass of aged Bordeaux?
Nope. Not your “enlightenment”! But that's okay because, for the Dream Police, “special orders don’t upset us, all we ask is that you let usserve it your way.”
The problem is that you think you know, but you don't have a clue and neither do the Dream Police. There is NO awakening to truth that "you" could even come close to comprehending. You can’t blissfully enjoy non-dualism, since there can be no “you” for which to experience “bliss" since you cannot experience anything that has an opposite.
If you're still ‘here,’ then you ain’t ‘there’ yet (and don’t give me that “I must stay and teach the ignorant masses” BS). But not to worry, because there is nowhere to 'get' and you’re right where you need to be.
The “Dream Police” feed your ego because it always needs 'something' and they aim to provide what it wants. They love to fill your head with ideas and they plan to teach your ego all they 'know.' They use words like “non-duality” “enlightenment” and “oneness,” as if such distinctions were necessary. But then they disclaim what they teach, by claiming they only "point" to truth but, as everybody knows, it's impolite to point.
The Dream Police want to teach you how to awaken from the 'dream.'
Unfortunately, they are part of it.
Beware the Dream Police!
The dream police, they live inside of my head.
The dream police, they come to me in my bed.
The dream police, they’re coming to arrest me, oh no.
You know that talk is cheap, and those rumors ain’t nice.
And when I fall asleep I don’t think Ill survive the night, the night.
Cause they’re waiting for me.They’re looking for me.
Every single night, they’re driving me insane.
Those men inside my brain.
I remember years ago reading about Richard Alpert, assistant 'acid master' under the tutelage of the real 'master' Timothy Leary at Harvard Univ. Alpert reported experiencing the same wild, flying through consciousness , world-love, experiences in India with his chosen guru, as when he was daily experimenting with LSD at Harvard U.
He came back from his Indian induction as Baba Ram Dass. In several books, most famous “Be Here Now,” Ram Dass asserted that through 'natural’ meditative practices he achieved the same ‘higher states of consciousness’ that he experienced through LSD and Psilocybin (mushrooms) while at Harvard.
I've had some profoundly interesting experiences many years ago while ingesting various chemicals. I have also had very similar experiences through my own past meditation practices (through the American Med. Society, which teaches a form of TM only with a personalized mantra provided by the guru or guruic representative). This is commensurate with the claims of Ram Dass, Terrence McKenna, and many others.
So what’s the difference between the drugged experiences and the reported "pure" experiences of meditation?
The difference seems most likely (speculation, open for questioning) in the paradigm through which the experiences are interpreted (of course, this is also Ken Wilbers claim). Ram Dass’s guru taught ‘service’ and Ram Dass returned to the states with that learned goal clearly reinforced by the intense "superconscious," or altered state, experiences he acquired. If the egoic paradigm supports God, nirvana, enlightenment, etc, then clearly the altered psychic state will be interpreted by the ego in just that way.
The egoic paradigm is paramount and serves to filter any profound psychic experiences. Thus, without the learned paradigm, the experiences, such that Alpert had at Harvard, were useless since the paradigm or model which made the interpretations, while on acid, was grounded in the world's value system.
The meditative psychic experience is filtered through what the ego-self considers as pure and unadulterated eastern paradigm. Although both may be the exact same states of consciousness, it is the egoic self which makes the determination as to value and worthiness in order to be accepted as 'awakening' or 'enlightenment.' The experience is real (whether through drugs or meditation) while the interpretation is purely ego-self, "wow, that was great! It must've been the enlightenment they told me about."
Ram Dass needed, in his opinion, the correct paradigm or teachings before he could adequately process the psychic states. The states then supported and reinforced the paradigm. (if you read Castenanda’s “Don Juan” you’ll see these same egoic interpretations of higher or altered states throughout the narrative, but note that psychedelics were used to attain the states).
My assertion is that through these states or neurochemical alterations, the ego constructs interpretations that it has learned from other teachers that simply serve to reinforce the ego from those interpretations. The interpretations will be formed from the paradigm that the ego-self has determined are worthy of adoption and this occurs long before the experience is encountered, otherwise the experience must be processed through whatever paradigm or model exists within the ego belief system.
Yet, the ego can even go back and re-evaluate past states and thus make a consideration of "awakening.'
The question is, does the fact that the states are interpreted and defined by the ego lessen or diminish the psychic states? Do we need to have neurochemical imbalances and alterations to reinforce ego-self belief systems? Recall that severe bipolar neurochemical imbalances also result in altered psychic states, but we tend to refer to this as mental illness.
If superconsciousness or awakening is nothing more than an egoic interpretation of "superconsciousness," what does this say about the whole awakening premise or paradigm which is based on ego transcendence?
If the mental state requires ego interpretation, how could it ever signify a state of egolessness?
This tends to stand the usual argument of "you can't understand unless you have the experience" on its head. It seems the real story is that you can't understand the experience until you have the correct paradigm through which to interpret the experience.
Possibly the real experience, or Truth of the matter (cap T) is that you will need to smash all paradigms through which your ego has been taught to interpret experiences.
Maybe by preparing yourself for SURPRISE, with no paradigm attached or associated, will you then have an experience unclassifiable by your ego. Until then you will simply interpret your supposed superconscious psychic states based on how you were taught to interpret them.
And because of this, we have the wonderful "awakening" industry....
I find it interesting how the spiritual 'map-maker' Ken Wilber (Integral Theory) and his loyal Integralites, seem to be campaigning for relevance by denouncing other spiritual ‘map-makers.’ This campaign is no different from the current U.S. political beliefs-bashing we’re witnessing today (even though the integralists attach disclaimers that they are not really being "mean-spirited")
The Integral theory is a smart, esoteric package of beliefs, or an intellectual “map of the territory,” that is relevant in many ways to many people. However, I wonder if this denigration of other ‘maps’ may result in a backlash against the Integral Theory. Last time I heard it was Deepak Chopra. Poor guy, I’ll bet he didn’t see it coming, but alas, he was victim to the infamous “pre/trans fallacy” attack. (I wonder if he felt the blow?).
The pre/trans fallacy has relevance, yet it seems easily applicable to any spiritual state of mind that does not fit Wilber's own spiritual "map." In fact, through this reductionistic method it seems likely that all transrational states (beyond normal everyday consciousness) can be interpreted as prerational childish babble. But that argument is old, so I'll spare you.
However, now it seems the Integralistas are going after “The Secret” by Rhonda Byrnes and company. I read “The Secret” (and watched the DVD) several years ago and, although I found many flaws in the presentation and missing links to the theory, I thought that on the whole it was quite an empowering message. Sure, there was a lot of glitz and glam about it (and bit too much object obsession) but if it helps to empower an engagement with Spirit, and if that engagement leads to an experience of greater abundance, then all the power to it.
What we really want is NOT an abundance of things, but an experience of abundance.
I just can’t understand why Ken Wilber would feel the need to criticize these formats. Does the immense popularity of these belief systems cause him jealousy or, like ‘government,’ does he feel the need to protect us from ourselves?
This dialogue was posted on Integral Naked so I thought I would talk about some of the points made.
As with any “you create your own reality” schema, The Secret fails what can be called “the Auschwitz test.” According to The Secret, everyone who was murdered at Auschwitz—or Rwanda, or Darfur—created that reality for themselves, and therefore they are to blame for their fate. For obvious reasons, this position is an unconscionable as it is untenable.
This commingling and convergence of the collective and individual mind-consciousness is one aspect “The Secret,” and much of the current “law of Attraction” literature, does not extensively address (certainly not to the extent Wilber expounds on his own spiritual theory, which is literally mind-boggling to put it mildly). However, if you read the works of Thomas Troward, an early 20th century intellectual and prolific advocate of this “law of attraction,” (LOA) you will understand that the Divine Mind or Universal Consciousness is a composite of both individual and collective thought-substance. Therefore, both modes of “attraction,” or reality-creation, are in operation-all the time.
If 10 million minds believe fear and anger justified, then the results of that collective thought patterning will be manifest and we can, and do, see that manifestation worldwide. However, the collective does not cancel out the individual as both are expressions of Spirit or, as Wilber would state, "Kosmos."
What “The Secret” proposes is that on some level (which implies “quantum”) we create our reality, individually and collectively. However, the convergence aspect of individual and collective consciousness is NOT ruled out, its just that the focus of The Secret is the individual component.
Auschwitz, Darfur, Rwanda and all present day and historical atrocities are an amalgamation of a collective consciousness addicted to fear and the manifestations of fear. This can be curtailed, and even completely alleviated, through the collective-mind when each individual consciousness seeks to experience an abundant life devoid of fear. Fear obstructs the Joy of Being in any consciousness, including the collective.
By teaching that the world quite literally revolves around you, The Secret encourages and entrenches narcissism. In developmental psychology, narcissism doesn’t mean an unhealthy obsession with thinking only about yourself, it means you can’t think about yourself. The capacity for self-reflexive awareness just isn’t there. The entire world and everyone in it is simply an extension of your-self, and you are literally unable to take the perspective of another human being. This is not mystical union; this is pre-rational fusion, and without the ability to take the perspectives of other sentient beings, the entire foundation for ethics evaporates.”
Good grief, how KW loves that concept of "narcissism"! My friends, when you hunker down into your lotus to meditate your way to enlightenment, make no mistake the goal of that moment is narcissistic, since YOU desire enlightenment for YOURSELF. However, it seems KW has cherry-picked his own version of narcissism that he ascribes to the field of developmental psychology. For KW narcissism is when you “can’t think about yourself” and the entire world becomes an extension of yourself, in other words the narcissism of an infant, undeveloped ego-self. I don’t know why he took a clear and concise psychological term like “narcissism” and twisted it into a distorted concept he calls “pre-rational fusion.”
Essentially, for Wilber, “The Secret” promotes sociopathic narcissism in which we selfishly ignore others in our quest to manifest material possessions, all others be damned. The very idea that one who adheres to the Law of Attraction, as promoted by “The Secret,” fails to take in the perspective of others or even realize others exist except as an extension of self, is a reductio ad absurdum.
Clearly, most of the reputable “law of Attraction” theorists emphasize that “attracting” from Divine Mind, “universal consciousness” or Spirit must be aligned with the collective good of said named “universe.” Obviously, if I want my mother-in-law dead this is not aligned with a loving and rational universe or Divine Mind and, in fact, may negate or nullify that universal quality or substance. I may terminate my mother-in-law, but most likely this will only bring up and reinforce the reality of my more dormant "shadow" elements from the depths of consciousness right up into my face and into my everyday experience. I will in fact, “attract” or manifest a reality most disturbing and not advantageous to me in any way. I would suggest that all you sociopaths out there NOT seek change your lived-experience through the "Law of Attraction."
Actually, you are creating the universe moment-to-moment, but it’s not the “you” that you think. According to the great contemplative traditions, every person has at least two “selves”: the finite, temporal, egoic self-sense, and the infinite, transcendental, unqualifiable Self, or I-AMness. Your Self, your I-AMness, is indeed giving rise to the entire radiant Kosmos in this and every moment, but The Secret teaches that your separate self has the power to personally manifest a new car, win the lottery, or cure cancer… and this simply isn’t how things work.
Hmmm…but both “selves” are in fact “you” as an expression of that universal wholeness, since nothing is excluded or left out of the Oneness Equation. There is no clear cut partition. Even Wilber contends that “the self is all over the place” (Eye of Spirit) so why shouldn’t those who achieve a greater organization of the self-psyche reap the rewards of that escalated or higher correspondence with the universe, "Universal Consciousness" or Spirit.
It seems that Integral Theory does not seek to integrate the two selves (or transcend and include), but counter-productively denigrates and excludes the “self” that desires and wants. The Buddha proclaimed self is suffering, but only from a belief of incompleteness.
Does everyone have to be an 'enlightened master' in order to correspond with Spirit? (even in some small way). The contemplative traditions overemphasized detachment from egoic self for a reason. This is because the exterior world is a reflection of a seemingly all-encompasing, compulsive addiction to ego-self desires. In other words, if I re-program your passive personality to attain the extreme of aggression, you most likely will settle into an assertive center as your new baseline functioning, but you will not attain the extreme because your current personality baseline is against it. If taken to the extremes your natural predisposition will be to find the center.
Nevertheless, the more you attempt to break free of egoic mind the more strongly it clings to you. Maybe instead of breaking free we must first learn to harness or, more specifically, manage it (and this is a Wilber principle!).
There seems no reason to me why a mind corresponding with Spirit through a deep and abiding sense of gratitude for Being, should NOT generate an experience of abundance. Notice I emphasize the 'experience of abundance' and not necessarily a 'manifestation' of abundance, which would be relative to the individual mind accessing Spirit. Whether or not that abundance is objectified or results in physical manifestation is not the point. Yet, the EXPERIENCE is always the point.
From an experience of completion why should you not “attract” abundance, possibly even in terms of "objects" within consciousness or manifest physical abundance? When one is synchronized with the universe, coincidences do NOT happen and often ‘things’ have a way of just showing up because their supposed to.
But you must first seek synchronization and many claim that involves a consistent experience of love and acceptance. Possibly, the greater the synchronization with this "Universal Consciousness" the greater the manifest abundance and this seems congruent with the law of cause and effect in which a greater cause will generate a greater effect.
"The Law of Attraction” is true—as far as it goes. The problem is that The Secret takes this one relatively small piece of the puzzle and makes it the entire puzzle. A positive outlook will change your life and your intentions will co-create your reality, but so will brain chemistry, interior level of development, family relationships, natural disasters, cultural trends, language structure, environmental toxins, and, basically, the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
I agree, “The Secret” only gives a “piece of the puzzle,” but I don’t feel it advocates this as the whole puzzle. Notice how Wilber equates “the Secret,” and the The Law of Attraction it promotes, with simply having “A positive outlook.” KW is so deeply entrenched in his "quadrants," he will allow only the most enlightened of minds to converge the left and right quadrants or, more specifically, allow the interior world of individual experience to alter the exterior experience of consciousness as manifest.
Wilber lumps aspects of our empirical, objective facticity with his concept “interior level of development.” Like that can be studied! No, but the interiors of awareness can be self-formulated, regulated and built upon to create incredible experiences through the interior unfolding externally. It's your experience, do what you will to enhance it
Developmentally, if one uses a scale ranging from archaic to magic to mythic to rational to pluralistic to integral to super-integral, The Secret teaches the magical thought structures that were humanity’s leading edge several hundred thousand years ago. As Ken explains, The Secret encourages childlike “primary process thinking,” which can be in the form of “the law of attraction” (e.g., if one black thing is bad, then all black things are bad) and “the law of contagion” (e.g., if this particular man was powerful, then a lock of his hair must be powerful too).
Yes and many claim this childlike “primary process thinking” is less stifled and obstructed by fear (conditioned) than the supposed evolved minds of the developed ego. What may be interpreted as “magical thought structures” of time long past, can now be re-interpreted as miraculous forms of thought-consciousness, which can create wonderful experiences for those who can “pray ceaselessly”(correspond with Spirit) and thereby reformulate the experiences of their life.
The importance of understanding how unconscious psychological shadow elements color and affect one’s experience, and how The Secret can agitate, alienate, repress, or—perhaps even more worrisome—act on these disowned elements of consciousness.
Yea, and for $250 you can purchase Ken’s enlightenment package (which is glamorously presented), which will, after many decades of hard work, identify your “shadows” and free you up to become an enlightened master. Obviously, Shadow elements will obstruct the crystal clarity of consciousness and the experience thereof. Nevertheless, The LOA advocates claim that the exterior experience will require a more mindful awareness and, hence adjustment of these interior shadow elements. Fear and anger will obstruct not only what you might manifest, but how you would experience that manifestation.
The exterior world is a reflection of an interior state, collectively and individually. Therefore, if the exterior is not an experience to your liking, seek to change the interior. Even cognitive psychology tells us this much, “it’s not reality that disturbs you, but your interpretation of reality that disturbs you” (Aaron T. Beck, MD, paraphrased).
The genesis of the pre/trans or pre/post fallacy, and how The Secret is a perfect example of elevating pre-rational childish impulses to trans-rational spiritual glory. Simply because both categories of experience are non-rational, they can easily be confused, and often are.
The impulse to attain an experience of joy and abundance in your life is most likely not childish and can even be considered a return to a consciousness less ego-formed (preconscious?), and thus less stifled, through the experiences of an external world. Yet, Ken would chastise you for being prerationally childish and immature in this joyous "state" since you have NOT evolved to a "stage" where it could be correctly interpreted as useful.
The Reality Creation Hypothesis, which includes the LOA, has been around for centuries in every culture and on every continent. From the Gnostic interpretations, to Plotinus and Parmenides. It can be observed within the Buddhist and Advaita Vedanta traditions. In the western 20th century we can find it in everything from Shirley Maclaine, the Seth books, Abraham-Hicks, Conversations with God, A Course in Miracles, etc, etc. Even theoretical physics, or quantum mechanics, often seems to inadvertently imply a veiled correspondence between thought and physical manifestation (although scientists are loathe to admit as much and if they do they are resigned to the lunatic fringe).
Obviously, we have no objective, empirically studied accounts of any consistent reordering of the quantum level of time and space. Nevertheless, the evidence seems to be mounting in favor of our ability to redirect and possibly even control the objects of consciousness or, more succinctly, our experience of an exterior manifest world. “The Secret” merely opens a door for many to actually consider that potential.
As opposed to Wilber’s critique, I don’t necessarily believe “The Secret” attempted to give the whole picture (unfortunately, not even Wilber can do that, although he may think he does) but maps out a direction that is understandable to many (as opposed to Wilber's ideas). Like the teachings of the “ancient masters,” it only serves to remind us of Spirit too long ignored and the benefits of an enhanced awareness.
The Law of Attraction has helped many to, at the very least, alter their experience from one of deprivation to one of abundance. It may not get you a Porsche or a mansion on the Riviera but, if by focusing on your experience of Being-in-the-world (Heidegger hyphenated to denote unity), you experience an increase of love peace and joy, isn’t this the internal essence of an engaged life that we all seek to experience (and who knows, maybe even a Porsche). Besides, if you shoot for the stars, but merely land on the moon, isn’t that in itself an amazing feat?
I don’t want to be an enlightened master. Rather, I just want to embrace a greater conscious experience of joy in my life. And I aim to do just that employing every scrap of information that I find useful (including Integral Theory, The law of Attraction and, yes, even “The Secret”).
I would suggest that those who have experienced a feeling of empowerment through the ideas as touched on by "The Secret" read the original theorists (Troward, Holmes, Haanel, Behrend, etc, etc) who first postulated these ideas and presented them to the world. There is a secret that "The Secret" failed to unveil. I wonder if Ken Wilber knows, but isn't telling?
If Jesus was crucified and died, but proved that you cannot die by resurrecting, then he proved that there is no sacrifice and no sacrifice will ever need be made.
If you do not die as Christ did NOT die, and death is the ultimate sacrifice we believe can be made, then we may have missed or distorted the message of the resurrection and become fixated on the sacrificial message of the crucifixion and death as ultimate sacrifice.
This may mean that 2000 years of Judeo-Christian preaching has taught the opposite of what the message was really meant to teach: You cannot die (although your belief in a body ends), there is no sacrifice to be made because you are eternal/infinite.
Therefore, we have nothing to fear and can finally live in peace, joy and love to the fullest since we need no longer be concerned with any belief in an ultimate sacrifice. Yeah!!!
Not only did he know he was like God (or is God?), I believe the message was that we are no different than him. There is a sense of non-duality in parts of the biblical message if you choose to interpret it there (which I have done sporadically). The message touches on the paradox of the one and the many. This includes God, the son and the Holy Spirit as One. Christ is the "holy spirit" through the message of Christ Mind which is "within." Jesus gave the message (as did many other eastern and western messengers) and because we worship the messenger we may miss the message 'within.' This seems opposite to the Buddha in which the message takes predominance.
Judeo-Christian ideology seems to focus on the messenger as being beyond our ability to emulate or model, thus the messenger is worshiped as God, which tends to press us more deeply into our own sense of inadequacy and impotence and the belief that we could never attain Christhood. Even though, as I state, his message was that we are God and not, 'I' am God.
"he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do."
The Judeo-Christian dogma has held sway as a controlling factor for many centuries and western life was morally ordered through these beliefs. I saw a poll that indicated that a growing segment of the American populace was indicating a stronger inclination toward 'spirituality' as opposed to 'religion,' and I think someone wrote a book about this and was interviewed on Jon Stewart - I'll have to find it (and I suppose this is related to a certain extent to the Tolle-Oprah factor and of course, Ken Wilber and his minions). It will be interesting to observe the new morality which emerges from this wave or movement, since morality is the foundation of all legal and economic systems (as well as other institutions).
There seems to be some distaste or disdain with eastern dogma over western by many Christians. I feel the two have many similarities and the recognition of those perspectives is the perennial philosophy since the similarities are there for all to see throughout the centuries.
These are shared insights and Integral Theory has aided in extracting these truths. The problem with the integral map for me is that much of the Judeo-Christian traditions are neglected or ignored as archaic/mythical and not predisposed to our "evolving path" as a collective. Integral seems to focus exclusively on the eastern truths and this may be a part of the backlash many Christians experience to this "idealistic" worldview. (however, the Judeo-Christian worldview is as "idealistic" as the eastern)
However, although I seek out the similarities and look to a merging of eastern/western, I do not simply focus on "advaita" (one can look to the ideas of Buddhist/Hindu/Taoism and Judeo/Christian/Islamic) as that would be too limited in scope. The perennial insights/truths are there in all ideologies and dogma. You must simply separate the wheat from the chaff and this may need to be done individually as the 'church' may continue to be mesmerized by the chaff.
In fact, I do not necessarily agree that the church truly represents the communal aspect above the individual. If you look closely the 'church' is founded on exclusion and any communion of individuals requires 'membership' in a whole that may exemplify separation. The church tends to emphasize communion, but of members or 'believers.' Focusing on the whole and acting from that deeper truth will not require inclusion within any exclusive ideological enclave.
There may be evolving a global church of mind that relies on perennial truths and requires no such membership or inclusion. In fact, various forums on the internet may be a model for such a worldwide inclusive communal dialectic.
I'm no religious historian, but clearly any study of world religions seem to be replete with the strands of Jesus within all the created dogma. Even Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, etc, etc, exposes mythological renditions of Christ that compare equally with the more modern Christian representation of personal salvation (and then, of course, there is Gilgamesh and the whole "ark" thing).
The parallels are staggering and may point to the fact that Jesus NEVER existed except in our own disillusioned collective mind. Somebody needed to transcend the hell that is reality and all religions require that transcendent "being," since any transcendent being must be personified in order to teach unified transcendence.
In our mythological archetypes we teach ourselves how to transcend, since essentially within the universal collective consciousness we have always known the truth, yet fear obstructs our seeking and delays learning. So we cloak the truth in myth in order to hide it from ourselves. Transcendence/salvation can only be known as a past phenomena that allows us to anticipate salvation as a future event. Never NOW, always past and future. Religion encapsulates this fear of the NOW by demanding we study the past as the way to a better future.
Could it be that Jesus is an anthropomorphic myth of the collective conscious which imagines an archetype to teach us the parameters of salvation demanding that such knowledge can only be revealed through sacrifice?
