Bruce Charlton's Notions

I regard Rudolf Steiner as having first made explicit one of the core tasks of modern Western Man: which is to become conscious of the thinking of our real-divine selves, and to make this the basis of a modern and unprecedented kind of 'spirituality' (or, by a new definition: mysticism). 

Or, in other words, our task is each to develop a spirituality of conscious thinking (which I have termed 'primary thinking'). 

Steiner's was a complete break with, almost a reversal of, the traditional and ancient aim of 'mysticism' - which was directed against thinking; against consciousness and 'the self' or 'ego'. 

Both traditional mysticism and Steiner are united in deploring the mundane and meaningless materialism of modern consciousness; but their suggested answers to the problem are almost opposites; and their interaction with materialism is also in stark contrast - with mysticism de facto sustaining, but Steiner's spirituality opposing, materialism. 

The traditional mystic attempts to return to the ancient state (and early childhood experience) of ceasing to be dominated by thoughts, ceasing to entertain 'ideas', discarding the self, losing individuality: ultimately immersing oneself unconsciously in life/ the divine - without separation, restoring primal oneness. 

At the end of his life; Steiner wrote a biography in which he attempted to reconstruct the movement of his thinking through the 1890s, when he realized that the revival of traditional mysticism would be mistaken. 

Steiner was convinced that the fullest and broadest possible awareness of the world of our ideas, of what is here termed the 'ideal' world could be the basis of a new spirituality or mysticism. In this passage 'ideal' thus means of the nature of 'ideas'

(I have somewhat edited this passage, hoping to enhance brevity and clarity.)  

**

At the close of this first stage of my life it became a question of inner necessity for me to attain a clearly defined position in relation to mysticism. 

As I considered the various epochs in the evolution of humanity - in Oriental Wisdom, in Neo-Platonism, in the Christian Middle Ages, in the endeavours of the Kabalists - it was only with the greatest difficulty that I, with my different temper of mind, could establish any relationship to it. 

The mystic seemed to me to be a man who failed to come into right relation to the world of ideas, in which for me the spiritual has its existence. I felt that it was a deficiency in real spirituality when, in order to attain satisfaction in one's ideas, one plunges into an inner world void of all ideas. In this I could see no road to light, but rather a way to spiritual darkness. 

The mystics desire living contact with the sources of human existence. And yet it was also clear to me that one arrives at the same kind of inner experience when one sinks down into the depths of the soul accompanied by the full and clear content of the ideal world, instead of stripping off this content when thus sinking into one's depths. 

By contrast; I desired to carry the light of the ideal world into the warmth of the inner experience. 

The mystic seemed to me to be a man who cannot perceive the spirit in ideas and who is therefore inwardly chilled by ideas. The coldness which he feels in ideas drives him to seek through an escape from ideas for the warmth of which the soul has need. 

As for myself, the warmth of my soul's experience increased in proportion as I shaped into definite ideas the previously indefinite experience of the spiritual world. 

I often said to myself: “How these mystics fail to understand the warmth, the mental intimacy, which one experiences when one lives in association with ideas permeated by the spiritual!” 

The mystics seemed to me to strengthen the position of the materialistically minded observer of nature instead of weakening it. 

The materialist objects to the observation of the spiritual world, either because he does not admit the existence of such a world, or else because he considers human understanding adapted to the physically visible one. He sets up boundaries of knowledge at that point where lie the boundaries of the physically perceptible. 

Yet the ordinary mystic is of the same opinion as the materialist as regards human ideal knowledge. He maintains that ideas do not extend to the spiritual, and therefore that in ideal knowledge man must always remain outside the spiritual. Since, however, he desires to attain to the spirit, he turns to an inner experience void of ideas. 

If anyone enters into the interior of his own soul without taking ideas with him, he thus arrives at the inner region of mere feeling. Such a person then says that the spiritual cannot be reached by a way which is called in ordinary life a way of knowledge, but that one must sink down from the sphere of knowledge into the sphere of the feelings in order to experience the spiritual. 

With such a view a materialistic observer of nature can declare himself in perfect agreement. He then sees in his system of ideas directed toward the things of sense the only justifiable basis for knowledge. For the materialist, the mystical relationship of man to the spirit is something merely personal, to which one is either inclined or not inclined according to one's temperament, but of which one can never speak in the same way as one speaks of the content of a “positive knowledge.” 

For the materialist, therefore; Man's relation to the spiritual should be relegated entirely to the sphere of “subjective feelings.” 

While I held this before my mind the forces within my soul which stood in opposition to the mystic grew steadily stronger. The perception of the spiritual in inner mental experience was to me far more certain than the perception of the things of sense; to place boundaries of knowledge before this mental experience was to me quite impossible. 

I objected with all positiveness to mere feeling as a way into the spiritual. 

I sought association with the spirit by means of spirit-illuminated ideas, whereas as the mystic seeks the spirit through association with the non-ideal. I also could say that my view rests upon “mystical” ideal experience.

**

My note:

Here we can see that Rudolf Steiner, writing about himself 130 years ago, was already aware that traditional (oneness-type) mysticism was compatible-with - indeed complementary to - the materialism of modern life. 

We can nowadays see that the 'oneness' spirituality of the kind extracted by Westerners from Eastern Religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism (known to Steiner from Theosophy) - and as now espoused by by New Age gurus, 'Perennialist' philosophers, and the 'mindfulness' trainers of corporate bureaucracy - comfortably goes-with and supports modern atheist-materialist-leftism. The 

Thus, on one side, the oneness spiritual people are nearly-all leftists who fail the Litmus Tests and thus support major strategies of the totalitarian-evil agenda... 

While on the other side; the leadership class of the leftist globalist totalitarians quite often espouse mystical/ oneness forms of "feeling but non-thinking" spirituality (King Charles being a prime, and topical, example).   

Therefore, Steiner enables us to understand how it is that generic 'spirituality' is insufficient either to resist, or to provide a positive alternative to, the crushing bureaucratic-media Matrix of these times. 

Indeed, it actually makes matters worse!  

I am surprised that so many self-identified Christians disbelieve in the devil; not only because there are so many biblical references, but also because a devil makes strong sense both metaphysically (in terms of an explanation for the world as a whole) and empirically (as an coherent way of explaining and predicting the specific occurrences of this world). 

I commented some time ago that a Christian who was as scholarly, influential and respected as Charles Williams; nonetheless didn't believe that the devil was real. 

I found this confirmed in my current re-read of his novel The Greater Trumps, where the character Sybil (who is clearly intended to be the depiction of a very-near Saint - although not convincingly to my mind) says this in her internal monologue:

She did not, in the ordinary sense, "pray for" Nancy; she did not presume to suggest to the Omniscience that it would be a thoroughly good thing if It did; she merely held her own thought of Nancy stable in the midst of Omniscience. She hoped Nancy wouldn't mind, if she knew it. If, she thought, as, the prayer over, she put on her other shoe - if she had believed in a Devil, it would have been awkward to know whether or not it would have been permissible to offer the Devil to Love in that way. Because the Devil might dislike it very much, and then... However, she didn't believe in the Devil...   

Elsewhere in the novel in several places, it is clear that Williams regards the most evil thing to be the Ego, the Self; because the characters who are depicted as doing Good are expunging their sense of self of agency, of separateness. 

This is a common trope, indeed, among many self-identified Christians through the past 2000 years - I mean that being a "Good Christian" entails a destruction of any recognition of oneself as a separate being from God - the goal is to merge with God, or at least allow God and Goodness to flow through oneself. The self is ideally to become transparent, immaterial - the self standing aside and - eventually - being discarded. 

In other words; I am suggesting that among those who regard themselves as Christian but who do not believe in the devil; it seems usual to believe that - in effect - The Ego is the devil. 

Sometimes this is even stated explicitly; but even when unstated it seems to be implicit in analysis and discussions of evil; because the attribution of evil tend to converge upon the separate and strong ego of a person - often the separated selfhood of the Christian himself is regarded as the primary evil in the world.  

This substitution of the devil by the ego in a context of the primary desire for oneness is, I think, one path by which someone who regards himself as Christian can come to deny the reality of the devil.

This fits with a metaphysical theology that all Good comes from God, and (therefore) for Men to become Good, requires that they cease to offer any obstacle to the shining forth of God's Goodness. 

When God is regarded as omniscient and omnipotent, it seems logical that Men can add - from themselves - nothing to Goodness; which is (by definition) already complete and perfect. 

Since Men can add nothing to Goodness but only obstruct Goodness by their innate evil; Men should, ideally, therefore become empty, become like conduits for the expression of divine Goodness.  

What I am getting-at here is that this is another version of my old bugbear "oneness spirituality" - the only officially- and totalitarian-approved modern spirituality - once again confusing people and masquerading as Christianity. 

I tend to think that oneness spirituality is a point of convergence both of Christians who really-believe in in a mono-omni-God with whom the Christian ought to assimilate; and those adherents of 'Eastern religions' (Hinduism, Buddhism) who believe in a more pantheistic and abstract non-personal deity - that is 'everything'. 

The conceptual gap is bridged by the soaring abstractions and infinitudes of 'Classical' Christian theology (i.e. using concepts from pre-Christian Greek and Roman philosophy - especially Platonism and Neo-Platonism). In other words; abstractions and infinites applied to God conceptually-merge the person of God into a de facto impersonal deity. 

I mean the "mainstream Christian" theology that has, as fundamental, assertions of the Oneness of The Trinity; God's supposed attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence etc.; and an infinite gulf posited between creator and created.   

What I am saying is that someone who takes seriously, and rigorously pursues the implications of, Classical Christian theology; will find that - one the one hand - he is converging towards a oneness spirituality (and the stance of 'perennial philosophy'); and on the other hand will disbelieve in the devil specifically and the operations of purposive spiritual evil more generally - and will regard Man's self/ego as the biggest spiritual problem in the world. 

Firstly, both of these are harmful in the context of the spiritual challenges for Christians in 2023. Because the Western Christian churches have been corrupted and enlisted on the side of evil; this implies that such a fact will be invisible to one who disbelieves that there is a 'side of evil'.

Furthermore, when the churches are corrupt, the individual Christian must operate from that which is Good in his own self/ ego - as the basis for discernment and seeking spiritual guidance. Unless there is the possibility of recognizing and committing to the Good within us, we cannot discern God's guidance from without-our-selves. 

If, instead, we are trying to dissolve our selves into the Omni-God, or into the divine-which-is-everything (it makes little practical difference which); then we are trying to destroy the only thing that might save us in an institutionally-evil world. 

 

Addendum: I make further speculations about what Charles Williams may have been up-to in this passage, in an Note to the mirror copy of this post, published at The Notion Club Papers blog. 

One of the problems throughout the history of Christianity has been that it has sometimes been framed as this-worldly, and sometimes as next-worldly - maybe sometimes some half-way-house compromise; whereas it is actually neither. 

This third-thing is not - of itself - difficult to understand; except that people will not give-up pre-existing categories of either/or, of what they already think Christianity is. 

The two ways of doing this, came under categories of complete acceptance of, and immersion in, this world - or the complete rejection of this-world as merely illusion, merely-sin. 

Obviously, the mainstream modern materialist way is complete and exclusive acceptance of this world, the attempt to maximize pleasure and eliminate suffering, and total rejection of everything 'spiritual'. 

But there is also an allowed (and to some extent encouraged) backup - which is the permissible 'oneness' spirituality; that has been Western manufactured from elements of Hinduism and Buddhism. This aims an annihilation of all separateness, all ego and thinking, re-absorption into the abstract and im-personal divine - as much as possible during this life (by meditation), and wholly after death.   

Christianity - by contrast - is about following Jesus Christ through-death, to resurrection and Heaven. Resurrection, Heaven and Jesus are all regarded as involving actual individual (free, agent) persons; and the ideal destination and state is loving and personal relationships, on earth and in Heaven.

With Christianity - those who choose salvation will remain them-selves, eternally. 

Why is this so difficult to grasp? Why do so many people try to stuff Christianity into just-this-world or abstract-other-world boxes?

Simply, but profoundly, because the metaphysical assumptions of modern man regard the personal as only this-worldly; hence time-bound, changeable - always being-corrupted toward a death which is annihilation of the self. 

The options for someone with such fundamental assumptions about reality are therefore either consciously choosing to accept the actuality of change and corruption - that is sin: which means denying any fundamental difference between sin and virtue; or else to yearn for a permanent escape from change and corruption that can only be into the un-conscious, impersonal, the abstract, the time-less - entailing the loss of that which makes us persons. 

This explains why modern materialism can comfortably coexist with oneness spirituality - the one accepts, the other desires, annihilation of 'the self'. 

And why, in practice, the advocates of other-worldly oneness spirituality are typically eagerly on-board-with the primary strategies of this-worldly totalitarianism. 

The possible spiritual paths in The West seem (in practice, if not in principle) to boil down to a choice between Oneness and Romantic Christianity. 

Oneness comes in many guises. It is the standard basis of New Age spirituality. Oneness is also the extracted essence of Westernised Hindu, Buddhist, Sufi mysticism and the like. 

And it is the core of that highbrow, relativised, symbolic, amoral-leftist derivative of mystical and ritual Christianity, popular among intellectual liberal 'Christians' such as Rowan Willams (sometime Archbishop of Canterbury).  

 

Oneness is (as a minority possibility) taught and supported by the Establishment. For instance some major state bureaucracies, educational organisations and private corporations offer Oneness teaching and/or therapy under various titles such as counselling and 'mindfulness'. 

And, at the intellectual and high cultural level; there are variants of the eclectic, syncretic 'perennial philosophy' derived from Theosophy with its anything-but Christianity tendencies - e.g. Prince Charles's Temenos academy or the Schumacher society. 

Positive features on oneness can be found in mainstream Leftist newspapers, on TV, in movies - its practitioners are at least acceptable, and may be accorded official honours and prizes.

 

What are its characteristics? Oneness teaching is against 'the Self'/ Ego, and against 'thinking'. 

It regards all men as One, indeed evrything that is - is One. 

The intention is to lose the thinking self into an apprehension this ultimate One-ness.

(In practice, this state-of-being is intermittent, recreational and therapeutic; and in-between times the Oneness practitioner will typically be well integrated into 'normal life' - which nowadays means The System and all it entails.) 

 

Why does Oneness fit-in-with The Establishment agenda of evil? 

Well, quite simply because the thinking Self - when that Self is our divine nature inherited as sons and daughters of God - is the only thing about us that stands outside of The System. 

The thinking of this divine Self is what we use to discern, judge and evaluate in accordance with God's values. The thinking of this divine self is what motivates us from a source in harmony with God's creation. 

The intention of Romantic Christianity is to locate, become conscious of, use and strengthen this type of intuition, this form of direct knowing.

 

Naturally, The System wants our divine, thinking Self dissolved away into nothingness! 

And is happy to encourage any philosophy which assists in such work!

Perhaps it is driving the principle too far to say that Being with God is less than Being with Self?

It is something which depends on the way we understand this statement. If we give-up our own individuality in order to be God's own Self - as some, it seems, are trying to do - we simply become God's own Self again, and lose our own identity. This means we are no longer in the context of the statement anyway, as there is no Us anymore. 

If it is a temporary at-one-ment, we can absorb a lot of God's presence quality, and therefore grasp the way His feelings and mind work...

We may still feel that we can know us-being-ourselves better than we can know God being God. It's the Teacher/ Pupil situation again, in which the Teacher wants it to become the Teacher/ Teacher situation - as Friends. 

Excerpted from a letter by William Arkle of 15th September 1995; to Jon Flint. 

This short statement by William Arkle seems to highlight the problem with aiming at oneness with God (or Deity); as so often advocated by Eastern-Influenced spiritual people nowadays; including many self-identified "Christians" whose implicit aims are actually oneness, rather than resurrection and Heaven. 

The problem is that if oneness with God is achieved, then we are no longer ours-selves, and therefore are no longer a part of the situation (the "context of the statement").

And therefore aiming at oneness is a species of the mainstream atheistic assumption that this mortal life is destined for annihiliation. Oneness spirituality may amount to little more than positively embracing the unavoidable annihilation of mind and body posited by secular materialism. 

[Which may be why mainstream secular materialism - even globalist totalitarianism - is happy to advocate and support oneness spiritualties - such as 'mindfulness' and (Westernized versions of-) Buddhism, Hinduism and the like.] 

But Arkle also mentions that a temporary, and somewhat incomplete, enhancement of oneness; can be considered a way of learning more about God's nature and motivations. 

In other words, some partial elements of the kind of passive, immersive, un-selfing, not-thinking meditation advocated by oneness advocates; can be a way of getting-to-know God better. 

A good old-word for this is communion - and may lead to making a useful distinction between the Christian seeking of comm-union with a personal God; and the "Eastern" aim of union with an im-personal God (Deity). 

The value of communion is obvious*; even when it occurs on the way to a temporary state of experienced-union - which by definition (if complete) is not experienced, neither is it remembered - because there is no Self either to experience or to remember what has happened.

Therefore communion with God ought Not to proceed to union, assuming we desire to learn and benefit from our knowledge of God. 

Union is good only for escaping from our-Selves, since it annihilates all experience of being...

 

*I would go so far as to say that nothing is more valuable to a Christian than a solid and faithful knowledge of God's nature and motivations; since this can serve as the basis of discernment and guidance though all manner of confusions and deceptions; including those propagated by the Churches.

I wrote a few years ago about 'mindfulness'* - and that kind of empty meditational practice; which is at best an analgesic, but is probably being pushed by The Establishment for much more malignant reasons.

This came to mind in watching one of John Butler's recent videos. I find him interesting because he exhibits the best and the worst aspects of the (Hindu/ Buddhist-derived) perennialist oneness spirituality as it affects the Western mind.

JB says much that is wise and valuable in the early part of the vid - and then towards the end demonstrates a stunning lack of discernment that comes through in supporting the vacuous 'mindfulness without God' fad, and references his dumb-evil belief in CO2-global-warming-totalitarianism that nowadays goes with New Agery. And the equally dumb-evil assumption that the rise in billionnaire-funded, mass media and state bureaucracy supported, mindfulness-training and climate-hysteria are steps in the right direction, that JB personally supports!

I mean, how unwise, how dense, does someone need to be to suppose that anything good for people, good for the planet, would really be emanating from such people and sources?


(The chap who interviews JB - Phil Shankland - is an Extinction Rebellion activist, who can be seen on his Facebook pages taking part in demonstrations. So much for the spiritual benefits of knowing and spending loads of time with a contemporary wise man, and meditating for hours every day - plus an active life associated with a liberal-'Christian' church!... JB himself - in other videos - apparently takes for granted the validity of Warmist claims to be able to predict and control the world climate by a - necessarily totalitarian - global government; empowered to monitor and control all human activity.)


Of course, if a oneness, Nirvana seeking, anti-ego meditator were trying to be consistent; he would have no political views at all; and no interest in other-people or the way that things apparently happen in this - by definition illusory - mortal life. He would have No Morality - because morality is regarded as just as much part of the illusion of This Life as is everything else we think is real. 

However, in practice, such folk mostly seem to be on the stupid and ranting extreme of Leftist moralistic posturing; and when followed-up through time (which, in theory, they also regard as illusory) exhibit a stunning inability to learn from life experiences.

That is what oneness spirituality seems to do to Westerners - it makes them indifferent to personal experience, and indifferent to the truth (i.e. indifferent to the maya / illusion of this changing mortal life) - but just to a sufficient extent to prevent them from taking life seriously enough to learn from the experience! Just to a sufficient extent to reject the reality of traditional sexual morality; but not quite enough to reject the moral imperatives that justify the ever expanding claims of the modern sexual revolution.

Somehow the effect of oneness and loss of ego is never quite enough to induce them to set-aside mainstream, approval-seeking, virtue-signalling, fashion-dominated Leftism...

*

I would say that meditation does indeed begin with self-remembering, being here-and-now; knowing the 'presence' of God. So far, JB is valuable, helpful. But meditation then should - instantly - move-on-to being aware not of God as a diffuse omni-presence (analogous to our immersion in the sea, or floating in air); but to knowing God as a person: indeed knowing God as our loving parent (here, now, with-us)...

(Knowing, that is, God as a Being - not an abstraction.)

And meditation should not be seeking to annihilate 'the ego' or 'the self', nor to dissolve it into the abstract one-ness of deity - but to bring forth our true and divine self.


(What would be the point of God creating mortal life if its purpose was to annihilate the body and the self? Better not have mortal life in the first place! No - the purpose of this our mortal life is to experience and learn from temporary incarnation and self-hood, so that we may be able to choose - or reject - Christ's offer of immortal incarnation and divine self-hood.) 


And meditation should be about our true-self meeting-with a Being: such as our Heavenly Father; or other divine, spiritual or other presence - perhaps the beloved dead.

And why should we meet such? Not for happiness, coping, to kill pain or reduce anxiety - But through love; that's the proper reason. It is indeed the proper reason for meeting anyone. Love of that person, or love of of God's creation.

And inter-personal love - between Beings; not love understood as a kind of gas, force-field, or high frequency vibration! 


Also, meditation should Not be about trying to sustain itself as a solid lasting state; but about (when needed, at will) touching-base with this underlying reality to reorientate ourselves in life.

We are not - clearly, from the design of this world - meant to spend our lives suspended in a static-state of meditation or prayer; but (mostly) in loving and creating. And meditation is in order to make this possible, set us on the proper direction etc.

What I (personally) aim-for: is to be able to meditate and pray often, on demand; but not continuously. As Arkle says; God does not want us to be thinking about Him most of the time; but God wants us to do what we are here to do; live in the way God wants us to live (roughly: loving and creating).

Broadly; we best serve God by doing what God wants us to do (and that is an unique destiny for each person), not in continuously contemplating God.


Meditation and prayer are therefore best 'used' as ways of reminding our-selves of this situation; and of clearing away that evil addiction to fear that JB so well describes early in this video.

To leave aside fear is necessary; but not an end in itself. Unless detachment from the temporary and irrelevant concerns of worldly angst is only a first step; then meditation becomes just a drugless Valium.

Context is everything; the meaning of meditation depends absolutely on the spiritual, religious, metaphysical assumptions that are used to understand it, and its purposes. 

We ought then to move straight-on to consider this mortal life in terms of our faith and hope of immortal resurrected life, through following Jesus. 


*Note: Mindfulness is meditation without religion, without God. Mindfulness is thus meditation embedded-in an the assumptions of mainstream, materialist, Leftism. It is meditation reduced to pure technique. Hence mindfulness is directed merely at human happiness in this mortal life, to the individual in the present moment. This amounts to, as I say, merely a non-drug form of painkiller, anxiolytic or antidepressant. It is a way of 'coping' with the incrementally-escalating psychological evils of totalitarian Leftism - which then, of course, is able to grow unopposed and unabated.

The Establishment has become extremely dominant in the world now; far more thoroughly than ever in the past - because of the mass and social media, globalization, and the way that the leadership class (of all major social institutions) is now enlisted in the leftist-project.

Everybody knows - because it has been going on for centuries, indeed millennia - that the ruling class uses religion to control populations. But because religion had an ultimate reference outside of this world and the material realm, this limited the way it could be used. 

Nowadays religion has been replaced as a tool-of-control by a materialist, this-worldly, secular ideology ("leftism" in its various and evolving manifestations) - which substantially (not entirely) encompasses the leadership class of the whole world. 

And ideology - in contrast to religion - is this-worldly, materialist, lacks reference to anything else - and therefore there is no limit to the usage to which ideology can be put by the rulers. 

Of course; religions and churches still exist, but it seems perfectly clear that all of these (at least, those with significant size, power, wealth etc.) are incorporated into the mainstream leftist ideology; and are on-board with the materialist-this-worldly agenda in its essentials.  

It is much less well appreciated that the same applies to 'spirituality'. 

Looking back over the Western spirituality movement - which goes back to the late 19th century - one can see the fingerprints of the Establishment with respect to many of the key, influential individuals and 'movements'. 

I have described how the introduction of "Eastern" religion and spirituality of a oneness type has been promoted officially - presumably due to its complementarity with the materialist-this-world core agenda. Much the same can be said of the (indirect but effective) promotion of drugs for spiritual usage in the 1950s and 60s; 'countercultural' lifestyles, pop and rock music, sexual promiscuity and 'experiment, and the New Age... 

By my judgment; it has been sufficiently documented that all the above was - covertly but consistently - supported by Establishment elements; and was involved with intelligence/ spying/ "spooks" - through tools such as class and family connections, covert influence on the mass media, selective subsidies or harassment - etc. 

I think there is insufficient awareness of the way that spirituality movements, teachings, lifestyles; have-been and are manipulated; in a way that is highly analogous to the way 'institutional religion' was controlled by the ruling class in earlier centuries - and that this continues.  

This is masked by the false assumption that spirituality is 'purer' than religion - and intrinsically anti-Establishment, individualistic etc; yet that is clearly not the case in the sense that the 'spiritual' people are a very homogenous group in terms of their affiliation to the officially-promoted side in the major social-cultural-political issues of these times: egalitarianism, feminism, antiracism, diversity, climate-based environmentalism, the sexual revolution and so forth.  

Indeed, the control of spiritual movements is so effective that this is invisible to those concerned. The pressures applied are so deep and pervasive as to seem like natural phenomena, forces of nature! 

The exact same people who subscribe to the globalist establishment agenda (on an almost point-by-point basis) therefore also and simultaneously regard themselves as radicals and rebels; fighting government, big corporations, officialdom etc! 

Consequently; the very same people (and institutions) who are most feted as leaders of the counter-culture, 'alternative' lifestyles, spiritual detachment, un-worldliness; those who pride themselves on their bold stances against authority! - are exactly those most likely to be agents, tools or dupes of the Establishment "Spook Agenda"!

The evidence is there, easily seen - in terms of background, affiliations, core beliefs; and the fact of high levels of mainstream public attention, esteem markers and and status - but such evidence makes no difference without the framework of assumptions that allow it to be interpreted as such.  

My take-home point is that while 'everybody' has encountered the idea that church religion can be (and has been) used by the ruling classes as a mechanism for mind-control; the same also applies to 20th and 21st century form of spirituality. 

And the obvious way in which apparently religious leaders (at many hierarchical levels) could actually be agents, tools or dupes for a socio-political agenda - is mirrored by the supposedly rebellious, radical, counter-cultural, alternative, spiritual leaders and 'influencers' of today. 

It is real, it happens, it is all around us; and the chances are that you are, or have-been - like me - (wittingly, to various degrees - or not) significantly involved in "the spook agenda" yourselves. 

There is a very prevalent logical error that pervades our culture; so thoroughly pervades it that it is all-but invisible, and difficult to understand. 

The error is to confuse annihilation and replacement, with transformational development. 

This error was made clear to me only in recent years and through reading Owen Barfield; but until that point (around 2014) I too was in thrall to the mistake. 

We have a deep, ancient and primary understanding of 'evolution' as a process akin to the development of an acorn to an oak tree, and egg to a chicken, a newborn baby to an adult. 

That is, we understand evolution to be a transformation of the self - while retaining the identity of the self. 

This could be called developmental-transformative evolution. 

In this primary understanding of evolution; the Being remains itself - but changes form. 

Thus, if we (as Christians) imagine our future spiritual evolution from this mortal life to resurrected eternal life; this is a 'process' during which we remain our-self but undergo developmental or transformative changes in both body and mind. 

The result is that our resurrected eternal self is the same person as he was during mortal life. And in Heaven we can 'recognize' others whom we knew in mortal life: they are still themselves.

But from the time that evolution by natural selection became a dominant social paradigm (during the late 1900s) there has emerged a qualitatively different conception of 'evolution'. 

This could be called selection-reproductive evolution. 

The key to this concept is selection acting on reproduction. Evolution of this sort 'happens' after reproduction, and is defined in terms of changed offspring. Therefore it is Not about transformation of the same-self; but replacement of the original parent by following generations. 

With selection-reproductive evolution; a variety of different types - different selves - compete; some reproduce differentially more than others; and evolution has occurred when either one or just-some of the original selves continue to reproduce. 

Meanwhile the other selves have Not reproduced, and their continuity has been annihilated. 

So this concept is based on Darwinian ideas of natural selection; and entails not transformation but replacement. After such selectional evolution, what persists is Not the previous self - but a different self: a different Being; because offspring are different Beings than their parents.  

In a brief phrase: natural selection is reproductive replacement. It is all-about replacing one thing with some other thing. 

Some survive and others do not; and those which survive replace those which do not. 

Because if the identity of the organism is being defined in terms of its genetic composition; then any genetic change is itself a kind of replacement. 

Following Barfield; I believe that many people are often deeply confused between these two concepts of evolution. The seem to believe emotionally that they are proposing a developmental-transformative evolution; when in fact they are advocating replacement of one thing by another. 

For instance; when people are keen on a future based upon Artificial Intelligence, or the Transhumanist changing of Man (by means of drugs, genetic engineering, inorganic implants, links to computers or the internet etc); they seem to suppose that this is an transformational enhancement of Men. 

But in fact such aspirations are simply the annihilation of Men and their replacement. Replacement of Men with... something else. 

In spiritual terms; AI and Transhumanism are therefore advocating covert suicide: suicide, because they themselves (and all other Men) will cease to exist; covert, because this desire for self-destruction is hidden by an irrelevant focus on what might replace us. 

This is closely analogous to a plan to solve the problems of this Earth by exploding the planet - and then calling Mars 'the new and better Earth'. Maybe Mars is better (fewer problems), maybe not - but better or worse, Mars is Not an evolved Earth; it is some-thing different. 

So much is fairly obvious; but the 'afterlife' proposed and yearned-for by many people shares this fundamentally suicidal impulse; because it hopes for the total destruction of the body, the self, the ego and all that is individual - by its absorption into the impersonal and discarnate divine.  

I am talking about the Oneness spiritual movement - which is so much a feature of the New Age in The West. This talks constantly about how all things truly are one, and how separation into persons is an illusion (Maya), and a 'sin'; and separation of Man from God is an illusion and a sin. 

According to Oneness; in reality there are no persons, no Men - only one God; and that God is not a person - because the divine encompasses everything, so there can be no definition or description of God. 

Nothing specific can be said about the divine except for an infinite series of denials of all less-than-total claims of God's nature: i.e. a negative theology of what God is not.

To hope for the 'evolution' of my-self, and Mankind, into One; is therefore to hope-for one's own annihilation and replacement. 

There would be - could be -  no continuity between me-now, and now living Men - and the aimed for annihilation of separateness into divine unity.

Oneness spirituality is not to solve any of the problems of the world; but to destroy the world - to destroy every-thing... and replace it with something else. 

It is solving the problem of misery and suffering in life, by ending all life - by killing everything. 

In other words; Oneness offers exactly the same kind of 'solution' to the problem of Man's mortal life as does Artificial Intelligence and Transhumanism. 

Oneness is just as much a covert advocacy of suicide, as are the schemes of technological replacement of Man by... 'something better'. 

And the reason why this is not immediately obvious; is that our culture has become deeply confused by the two concepts of evolution.

And has erroneously carried-over the spiritual aspirations of evolution understood as transformative-development, into the annihilation-seeking mechanisms of transformative-replacement.

One of the reasons that argument and persuasion (in general) are ineffective with modern people; is that their wrong ideas are based upon more-than-one false assumption. 

This means that if just one false assumption is challenged (and an argument can only do one thing at a time); the error remains - because held in place by the (currently unaddressed) false assumption. 

Modern Man begins with a conviction that death is annihilation - that death of the body (including brain, and all brain activity) entails total destruction of that person. 

Thus; rejection of the desirability of eternal resurrected life by following Jesus Christ, is held in place by the modern person's materialism; his unbelief in even the possibility of life after death; unbelief in a spirit (or soul) that can exist without the body and after the death of the body. 

To become a Christian, a person first needs to cease to be a "materialist". 

But, when a modern person is persuaded that there is more than "the material" the spirit is real, that there is a world of the spirit; then this is not sufficient to direct him towards becoming a Christian. 

Those who newly believe in a world of spirit are presented with - on the one hand - a Christianity that is manifest in the materialism of this-world, including the bureaucratic-institutional reality of the churches... 

And on the other hand, the newly 'spiritual' individual is culturally offered a variety of pure-spirit, 'oneness' ideals* - whereby the spirit is presented as a separate and superior realm of being, and the individual self (and our  thinking) as this-worldly incarnation-caused delusions that need to be overcome in order to enter fully the realm of spirit. 

Repelled by the bureaucratic materialism of Christian churches (each of which presents itself as essential in order to achieve salvation after death)...

The newly-spiritual person is told that he needs to leave behind his ego-self (and our thinking). 

Therefore; the idea of bodily resurrection after death becomes regarded not so much as nonsense; as actively undesirable - a 'clinging' to the delusion that is the body, and an egotistical refusal to give-up the autonomous thinking agent.   

This is important: After (and this is a difficult transition) a modern person becomes convinced that there is a spiritual realm; that the spiritual is eternal and therefore superior to the corruption and death of this world; and that he will survive bodily death in a spirit form... Then he is inclined to regard the Christian offer of bodily resurrection as a childish thing, a kind of simplistic regression, a step backwards not forwards.

The newly-spiritual person is likely to regard with disdain (or dismay) the Christian ideal of remaining a separate being from God - both physically separated by having a body, and mentally-separated by retaining selfhood and the capacity for independent thinking. 

While Christians regard love as existing between free-individuals; the newly-spiritual modern person is more likely to understand "love" as being universally-directed at the entirety of reality; and a state of complete absorption-into "the divine", which is also "everything".

For the newly spiritual modern person; 'spirituality' implies a giving-up of individuality, and a return to an original state of undifferentiated oneness. 

So, instead of the self being annihilated at death by ceasing to exist (as mainstream modern people believe); the self is annihilated after death by giving-up its selfhood and autonomy, and all capacity for thought - by assimilating-into-universality.      

My point is that the Christian finds himself at (at least!...) two removes from conversion of a mainstream modern materialist. 

One (big) step being to induce belief in the realm of spirit; but then there comes a whole other business of trying to explain what resurrection means, why Christians want it, what Heaven is like...

And why Christians desire to retain personal agency, the capacity for thought, and gain a "new body" after death. 

*Oneness spirituality may also appear in the guise of a quest for 'wholeness' or 'holism'; under the assumption that anything less than everything is incomplete, and thereby insufficient. Christianity is about eternally loving relationships, (and with each loving relationship unique, irreplaceable) - not about attaining oneness/ universality/ wholeness/ holism. 

Anyone who has been a Christian for more than a few months will realize that our state does not bear much resemblance to the idea of 'enlightenment' which has floated vaguely into Western Culture from the East. 

By enlightenment I mean, the idea that someone attains a permanent insight, realizes the one fundamental truth about reality; and thenceforth is transformed positively and for the better ...

Or else, if there is backsliding, the path back to enlightenment consists in remembering and repeating that same original enlightenment. 

Such ideas are a part of oneness spirituality; for which there is indeed (at least potentially) a single insight of enlightenment:

Which is (approximately) that 'everything' is one - and all appearances to the contrary are maya (illusion). 

That (or, what the words point-at) is regarded as the single truth; and all possible enlightenments are of this same insight; and if one loses grasp of it, then any true future enlightenment must be a repetition of that single reality. 

But for Christians, in this mortal life, it is not like that - not even in theory. Because this life is Not one thing but many; and life is Not an illusion, but a reality from-which it is intended that we will learn. And any such learning during our mortal lives will be eternal - for all those who accept Christ's offer of resurrected and everlasting life. 

For Christians, this mortal reality is plural - not one. For Christians there ought to be many specific enlightenments. 

After all - why else would God sustain us alive unless there was more for us to learn from this life? 

When God decides that we have learned enough, or learned what we most need, then he will allow us to die; but (surely?) not until then - and of course, many leave this finite mortal life without having learned what they most need.

Therefore, in total contrast to oneness spirituality: Christian 'enlightenment' (or its equivalent) consists in many and different insights, each related to a specific need and learned from a specific context; after which we are confronted by different specific contexts from which you are intended to learn different specific lessons. 

This can lead to the dispiriting feeling of 'one step forward, one step back' - as if we are learning nothing, and there is no kind of genuine spiritual progress. 

But this is a consequence of false expectations. It is not true, or not necessarily true. A Christian who is making spiritual progress in one thing will still be confronted by the need to learn many other things.  

And any genuine spiritual 'progress' that we do make is - obviously - not primarily in terms of this mortal life; since earthly mortality is dominated by entropy (that is by decay, degeneration and death) - therefore any such progress would inevitably be temporary... 

The only durable spiritual progress is that which is 'stored' in our potentially-immortal soul and can be carried-through from this realm of inevitable loss into a realm of pure creation; where all that is Good will last forever. 

There has been a long-term (multigenerational) Establishment-backed strategy of convincing 'the masses' (i.e. as many people as possible) that this world is some kind of simulation, hologram, a un-rooted surface, virtual world, a fake - the Matrix. 

This goes with the idea that there is no truth - or that the truth is inaccessible to the human senses, mind and thinking; and the only dangerous people are those who believe there is a truth and that they can know it. 

There is a dominant ethic which has it that agnosticism is the highest virtue; that not knowing and knowing that one does not know, is the only really valid basis for life; that doubt is a higher state that knowing -- and, again, that the only really dangerous people are those who decide, take responsibility for their decisions, and act upon them. 

("Fundamentalists" - in other words, to use the jargon.)

Of course it can with equal truth be shown that the Establishment also desire that the masses should believe absolutely and do obediently... whatever the Establishment are telling them, today. 

And that this "today's truth" and today's "must-do morality" are absolute and permanently valid - because the fact they differ from last year, and may be reversed next week - does not affect the overwhelming factuality and ethical imperative of the present moment. 

This is our world. 

But such a world, in its own reality - perfectly complements the prevalent, "living in a simulation'', know-nothing agnosticism. 

As soon as any subject or 'issue' has been raised, there can be no knowledge vacuum - raising the subject (and the frame in-which it is raised) itself intrinsically assumes prior knowledge and values. Thought has content, and content assumes its own external reality and conceptual interpretation. Neutrality is incoherent because concepts always include values. 

Hence what is being asked of the masses (non-judgment, eternal doubt) is strictly impossible: therefore it does not happen. 

And that is why the Matrix says one thing ("believe nothing!"), but people do the opposite (i.e. believe everything the Matrix says, currently) - and that is exactly what the Matrix intends! The Matrix-masses combine maximum cynicism, and total obedience!  

The Matrix is experientially the world we live-in; and we also are told - by the Matrix itself; sometimes explicitly, and in a thousand indirect ways - as well as in hundreds of analogical and hypothetical ways (by 'fictions' in TV, movies, novels...) - that the Matrix is the world we live-in. 

But why, how, did this Matrix happen? 

Well, there can be no 'because' in agnostic Matrix world; therefore the Matrix Just Happened - just goes-on happening, under its own internal logic - aiming... nowhere in particular; because a Matrix can have no purpose.  

Thus, a further very popular, heavily propagandized back-up theory is that Matrix-manipulators do not exist because... stuff just happens due to 'emergence', the market, chaos-theory, forces and laws, historical cycles, progression or degenerations, and so forth. 

There is no covert purpose, no hidden hand, no intent of evil...

Ultimately "because" randomness. 

The only permissible and high-brow spirituality is oneness. This claim labels the Matrix as a this-world, temporary - because Time-bound, fake and illusory reality - As contrasted with a claimed knowledge derived from standing outside the Matrix, in an ultimate, eternal, changeless, unity. 

Oneness spirituality - supposedly derived from Hinduism, Buddhism and the Mystic East - feeds this agnostic Matrix view of reality, because every-thing is actually the same thing, good and evil are illusions, as are truth and lies, innocence or blame. 

For oneness; this life is all illusion and no truth; the enlightened Man realizes that he knows nothing; his thoughts are deceptions, his discernments are just ego; his self is actually not a self but just a minuscule part of the one - our hope should be that our self should cease to be differentiated from that one - then illusion will fall away - including the illusion of our own suffering...

Oneness says: cheer up! You are not really miserable - because you are too brief, insignificant and deluded for "your" "misery" to mean anything!   

So much for the negatives...

Then we must ask:

If Not; Then What? 

If not the agnostic Matrix - what else is possible, or better?

We can only legitimately recognize the evil of the Matrix from some other place that is Not a part of the Matrix world; just as we can only recognize agnosticism from having-made decisions about what assumptions are correct. 

Indeed, the whole Matrix operates - all the time - by creating and dissolving temporary and Matrix-expedient rules, truths, values, assumptions - and everything else positive. 

Or else - there is nothing, nihil, nihil-ism, and ultimate despair.

From where we are here-and-now; it does not work to wall-off some part of the Matrix, in hope that it will then operate on different lines. 

The Matrix covered the world in 2020, for all to see; and has neither been repented nor repudiated anywhere - not even in its essentials, let alone wholly. No nation has escaped the Matrix; no nation has clearly said they even want to escape: no nation, nor even any institution of size and power enough to be able to do it. 

Meanwhile here we are, you and me. 

We surely can't wait for 'other people' - whether a nation, a region, a locality, a church - to create a real world that we can inhabit.

Life goes on - and must be lived with some purpose, or else it will be as futile as the oneness-Matrixites tell us!

Death approaches... 

Therefore; we must find reality and truth for ourselves; starting from what we know we know; and ignoring the secondary and separate question of whether we can convince others, whether we can create a community of like-minded others... 

Ignoring; because we very probably cannot and will-not be able to share our truths - the world being what it is.   

And this is where Christian faith comes in. 

And it must be Christian faith. 

Because only the Christian God is creator, good, and our loving Father - so can be depended-upon and able to make possible whatever is necessary for our salvation, and to make our continued mortal life worthwhile from an eternal perspective - and only Jesus can guarantee that eternity to those who genuinely want it.   

The Matrix is everywhere and very powerful. But we can nonetheless, on our own, you and me; confidently defy the vast fake world of the Matrix; can discern and think our way to a sufficiently-solid basis of correct information, positive values, and therefore true knowledge. 

The alternative?

Well, living in the agnostic Matrix is worse than living in the Matrix of the movies - because, unlike there, the masses of the world in 2023 know that they live in a fake reality. The masses know this because, unlike in the movie, the Establishment who operate the Matrix tell people they are living in the Matrix; tell them over and again! 

And that is the other crucial difference between the movie and this life. In the movie, the masses are being exploited as sources of energy; therefore it is better they are kept in ignorance. 

But here and now, in this world, the purpose of the Matrix is damnation of Men's souls. It is therefore valuable that the masses inhabit the Matrix, and are aware of the fact - thus Men may be induced to despair. 

And despair is the surest of all paths to damnation. 

When men inhabit the Matrix, and when they also know that the Matrix is what they inhabit - they are consenting to the Matrix. 

And when the Matrix is evil by intent and design; then Men are consenting to evil. 

This is what the Matrix manipulators need to happen. Need, because of the work of Jesus Christ means that it is only when Men consent to evil that they will refuse salvation and are damned. 

(Jesus came to save sinners, and sinning is no bar to salvation - so long as sin is acknowledged as such; and the Man desires the resurrection offered by Christ.) 

This is, ultimately, why the Establishment make sure that We know what They are doing to Us; and then try to ensure that We accept it - accept, that is, that what-They-do is for-the-best. 

The idea that everything is All One - and that meditation reveals that underlying reality is this one - and is timeless, nameless, stillness, peace... and entails a loss of self-awareness and indeed all thinking and consciousness...

This is an occult attack directed-against God, creation and all of life - against all Beings, including Jesus Christ, all Men, and all hope of resurrection to Heaven.

This, because oneness is another word for primordial chaos, the chaos of purposeless-meaninglessness before divine creation, before any-thing. 

To desire oneness is therefore to desire nothing: to desire that God, creation, purpose, meaning and all that is beautiful true or virtuous... be rendered to nothing. 

To seek oneness is to seek that which is as low as may be conceived; and yet to call this the highest wisdom!

Such inversion of real-values is the hallmark of Satan. 

Mainstream modern atheist-leftist discourse has tried (all-too successfully!) to impose non-judgmentalism on Christians - largely by 'proof-texting' with Bible passages, removed from their 'supernaturalist' and salvific context. 

But the truth is that "non-judgmentalism" is a profoundly non-Christian notion; instead it is an anti-Christian - indeed Antichrist - idea, which will first subvert any attempt to lead a Christian life - then ultimately invert Christian values to lead to the ex-Christian actively taking the side of Satan. 

Christians not only can but must judge - as does everybody, all the time - even/ especially those who affect to advocate non-judgmentalism. 

In particular, we must choose either to affiliate-with God, the Good and divine creation and the values of truth, beauty and virtue --- or else (as of 2021, and things having-come to a point) we will (whether passively and unconsciously - or by conscious choice) find-ourselves on the (dominant and pervasive) demonic side, which opposes all of these. 

A neglected aspect of the need for judgment is that those Westerners who advocate an 'Eastern' spirituality of non-judgmental 'oneness' (mostly selectively derived-from Buddhism or Hinduism) have converged-with and joined the mainstream materialistic left-atheists. 

The convergence is not simply due to the intrinsic dishonesty of making the judgment that judgment is wrong - then denying that a judgment has-been made; but is a very fundamental problem deriving from the detachment of an Easter 'spiritual philosophy' from that taken-for granted context of a traditional Eastern way-of-life - within-which all actual Eastern religions (such as Buddhism and Hinduism) have operated. 

This is how it works: Having extracted the ideal of oneness from its real life context of pervasive traditional morality - the advocate must deny anything and everything that discerns (discriminates). In the modern world, this cashes-out as lumping-together every-thing as one-thing; and (most crucial) opposing all who try to detach them-selves from that one-thing. 

Since all serious Christians must detach themselves - spiritually - from that unifying evil which is The System; oneness philosophy always (sooner or later - but nowadays typically sooner) reserves special contempt and condescension for Christianity (any serious form of which, oneness demonizes as 'fundamentalist'). 

In particular Christians are demonized for the sin (but they deny sin!) of being judgmental - for example when Christians recognize the existence evil in the world, and identify those persons who are serving the evil agenda. 

What this means is that - as of 2021, when major church leaders have apparently all joined or support the Satanic Establishment - the serious Christianity of individual persons is all but alone in its opposition to the operation of evil in the world...

Because (pretty much, in The West) only Christians will discern, identity, name, expose and oppose evil. Almost everyone else - whether atheist or Western-Eastern-spiritual - prohibits the discerning judgment that is necessary to know and reject the operations of Satan. 

It was an ancient insight (going back to the earliest recorded philosophy) that Men as we are in this earthly mortal life; cannot be truly happy. 

Because; if Men (as we now are) were placed into 'Paradise' - then it would not be Paradise. 

We would not be fully happy there - and might even be more miserable. 

Furthermore; even if it had been Paradise before we arrived - we (as we now are) would soon wreck the place, to at least some degree -- in which case it would no longer be Paradise. 

Therefore; we our-selves are to blame for the ultimate unsatisfactoriness of mortal life on earth. 

Therefore, we have need for transformation before we can be truly happy; we our-selves must be first transformed before Paradise could be Paradise. 

Interestingly, this is recognized by the most advanced form of materialism so-far: transhumanism. This recognizes that Men need to transcend their current nature if they are to be fully happy, and free from suffering. 

But the transhumanist sees this as a material problem; and envisages Men as being transformed by physical means: drugs, surgery, implants, genetic engineering etc. But physical interventions can only operate within the constraint of this mortal world, which is entropic by nature; such that the desired order is always being-corrupted by chaos and any desirable state of being is temporary. 

Thus, even by its own lights - transhumanism can only at best yield amelioration of our condition - not Paradise. 

If Men are to be happy in Paradise it requires a spiritual - as well as material - transformation; indeed it requires that we understand the material to be part-of the spiritual, with the spiritual as primary. 

The Christian transformation that enables us to be wholly happy is termed resurrection; which can be understood as primarily a spiritual transformation to 'fit us for Heaven'/ Paradise - as well as the necessary physical transformation for such a life; such that we will have bodies, and yet also be immortal.  

Since Christians are called upon to have hope, and to follow Jesus to salvation; it seems to me that we need to be able to imagine what Heaven is like - sufficiently in order to desire it. 

Can we imagine the transformation of resurrection and a fully happy life in Heaven?

Some of us can. Those who recognize that some-times, at our best, this mortal life on earth is indeed Paradisal; thus wholly happy - albeit briefly. 

And we may also be able to recognize that these moments are also those times when we are most our-selves...

We may therefore be able to imagine, hence understand, that - in principle - we could be transformed such as to remain our-selves at our best; and become fit for Paradise. 

We may also be able to infer from such moments (and their basis in love) the nature of paradise. 

In sum - we may be able to know both that we require transformation to be truly happy; the nature of transformation needed; and that this kind of transformation is exactly what was offered by Jesus Christ. 

(After which we only need to determine whether Jesus's offer was valid.)

Note added. This post approaches the question from the bottom line moral assumption of mainstream modern secular materialist leftism - which is (roughly) that that is good which is most conducive to happiness - especially the elimination of suffering (the conceptualization of what-ought-to-be-happy vacillates, incoherently, between the individual - especially oppressed, victimized - person, and some abstract group entity that is regarded as oppressed/ victimized. But the scope of happiness is assumed to be that of this mortal life; and eternal life is disbelieved or disregarded. Thus all secular ideologies, including those that regard themselves as of The Right (conservative, republican, libertarian, alt-right etc), only differ in terms of suggested means to the same end: i.e. optimizing mortal earthly happiness.  

When the assumption is that we live eternally, the main rival to Christianity is that 'Oneness' spirituality which the West has extracted from Eastern religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, and which is promoted via the New Age, Perennial philosophy, and officially-approved 'mindfulness' exhortations. These locate suffering in consciousness, and consciousness in the-self (plus/minus the-material); and aim at the alleviation of suffering (plus/minus the maximization of happiness) by the annihilation of The Self into immaterial spirit, and assimilation of that which was separate into the oneness of deity. 

My point is that there is a sense in which all religions and ideologies can be reduced - and this is a reduction - to the nature of their concern with happiness. And that these differ irreconcilably about the proper scope of happiness, and how it can or should be attained. In other words, there is no possible coherent way of creating a single spirituality/ religion/ ideology from these three fundamentally differing assumptions. 

Leftism, Oneness and Christianity cannot be combined coherently - neither as pairs nor as a single unity. All attempts to combine them are actually subordinating one or other; or else alternating between incompatibles. 

We must therefore actively and consciously choose what kind of happiness we really want - or else the choice will (passively unconsciously) be imposed upon us. 

I have written before about JD Salinger's novella Zooey; and how it has fascinated me, off and on, ever since I encountered it in the summer of 1981. Well, I have again been dipping into it, and as usual it has triggered some associations and notions. 

Zooey struck me as a deep book, when I first read it - as if it might contain the "secret of life" somewhere embedded. It probably had this effect because this was the first time in my life that I had met with "spiritual stuff" that really interested and excited me. 

I was very taken by the way that some of the characters talked about spiritual and religious matters; in a personal and engaged way; this was obviously the most important thing for them (and implicitly the author). 

Maybe this was the first sense I got of the possibility of a personal and inwardly-driven spiritual/ religious quest for people of my broad type, people with whom I could identify. 

The Glass family did plenty of quoting and name-dropping, true; but clearly they were not just repeating what "other people" had said. 

And also, they were trying to use these insights in living their lives: giving it their Best Shot. 

My reaction was, I now perceive, a kind of recapitulation of the way in which, from the late-1800s and with the emergence of Theosophy; many Western people were attracted to the esoteric spirituality and religions of the East - mainly philosophical Hinduism and Zen Buddhism. 

(Mainstream Christianity was largely irrelevant to this quest - it simply did not address the driving motivations of such people.) 

And the way, also, that this Eastern perspective was then brought-back and applied to "Christianity" -  because Zooey (and the short story Franny that precedes it) is focused on the Jesus Prayer, and the Russian Orthodox book "The way of a pilgrim" - which is about the use of this prayer as the centre of a religious life. 

Zooey is permeated-by, and culminates-in, what I found at the time to be an appealing positive presentation of Jesus Christ - and that was something I had seldom encountered before.

(As a child and adolescent I had always found the character Jesus to be uninteresting, alien and irrelevant to my problems and concerns.)  

I can nowadays see that the version of Jesus Christ, the Jesus Prayer and "Christianity" that are featured in Zooey are primarily Hindu/ Buddhist/ Eastern. For instance; the Jesus Prayer is presented as a mantra, pure and simple; and Salinger's Jesus is a very different and almost opposite phenomenon from that of what I now regard as real Christianity. 

Salinger's Jesus is indeed much more like Buddha than the Jesus of the IV Gospel; and Salinger's Jesus's concerns and aims are in-line with Oneness spirituality; rather than being focused upon life after death, salvation, resurrection - and Heaven. 

But this understanding of mine is all retrospective. At the time of reading, my concerns and demands were much like those of the Glass family children. 

What, then, were these demands and concerns?

The big problem for the Glass children is that this mortal life on earth cannot live up to the aspirations and perceived possibilities of youth. 

This afflicts all the children we encounter in the main Glass stories: Franny, Zooey, Seymour, and Buddy (the author's persona) - and, implicitly the others too. They all seem to have a yearned-for ideal of what life could and should be - but later discover that whatever they do (and, between them, the children try a range of strategies)...

Whatever they try: life just doesn't match up with these intense hopes. 

Therefore, there is an underlying pessimism about the Glass family saga; even when the specific stories end in an upbeat fashion - upon what seems like an epiphany, an insight, an answer (as do both Zooey and Raise high the roof beam, carpenters) - the reader senses that it will be a very temporary and partial triumph.

This pessimism comes across primarily because the oldest child, Seymour, committed suicide; shot himself with a gun (in A perfect day for bananafish). 

Yet Seymour was (at least to his family) a spiritual genius, the best of the children - a man we are told was both far-advanced and deeply-into the actual practice of Eastern spirituality. 

Therefore, despite that Seymour, like Salinger himself, suffered from Combat Fatigue (true PTSD, not the watered-down modern usage) as a consequence of prolonged front-line participation in the World War II invasion of Europe - we feel that Seymour should, nonetheless - as a kind of saint, have been able to overcome whatever horrors life threw at him. 

The background - and deeply-sad - implication and conclusion; is that there is no answer to the problem of that between life-as-it-might-be and life-as-it is; because not even Seymour could find one. Seymor's failure in this mortal life casts across all the Glass stories a shadow of the inevitability of failure.  

The young Glasses may not grasp this, when they are still growing-up, extraverted, when life is apparently opening-out - and they have the delusional confidence that they will be the first to find this answer. 

But this will always fail; and will lead either to an abandonment of the spiritual quest (as with sister "Boo-Boo" - a socially-integrated housewife and family woman; or else to a frustration and dismay that increases with age (Seymour, and Buddy).

Then there is Waker, who is described as having become a Carthusian monk, vowed to silence for much of the time. It may be that we are supposed to infer that Waker has candidly acknowledged to himself the insufficiency of this mortal life; and looks therefore to the life beyond. 

My interpretation of Waker is that Salinger saw him more as an Eastern monk than a Christian. One who regards this life as suffering and an illusion, from-which we should seek to detach ourselves - awaiting a kind of re-absorption into universal and impersonal divinity. 

In other words; (IMO) Salinger had neither an understanding-of, nor belief-in, the Christian idea (well, some Christians believe it) that this mortal life and our death are real, necessary steps en route to a state of post-mortal divinity that is personal.  

So, I agree with Salinger that this mortal life is inevitably insufficient; and I agree with his implicit conclusion that there is no answer to this problem within the scope of Eastern religion.

(Since; to regard this mortal life as a tragedy of suffering and attachment is not a solution; and to cure our sense of tragic insufficiency with annihilation of "the self" and consciousness is to avoid, but not to solve, the problem.) 

In conclusion, I continue to regard Zooey as a valuable and honest - as well as interesting and exciting - "spiritual story" - but I no longer believe it contains "the answer" to this mortal life!

Rather, Zooey and the other Glass stories show us what are Not the answers... 

But more than just "showing"; through participation in these stories, we potentially live-out putative answers, and experience for ourselves their (noble!) failures; and they leave us to continue the quest for ourselves and in different directions. 

Since the advent of Romanticism some 250 years ago; it has been said that Man is cut-off from the world of Nature, making each of us alienated and prone to despair - and therefore wee should strive to re-connect. 

This is all true; but the problem has been - for those who genuinely tried to re-connect - that it doesn't work; or, more exactly, the method prescribed only works in (and by inducing) an altered, lowered, state of trance-like consciousness that is essentially passive and contemplative and cannot be integrated with the rest of life. 

At best, it makes for a kind of "holiday" from our mundane state of alienated despair - something we can later remember and day-dream about - or "recollect in tranquility" to paraphrase Wordsworth.

This just isn't good enough: it does not suffice. At best, we alternate between a dreamy holiday absorption in nature, and the usual isolated disconnection. 

What we want (or, at any rate, what I seem to need) is not such alternation (typically massively weighted towards the mundane) but to move towards integrating our whole life as well as re-connecting with nature.  

As an example, here is John Matthews describing the usual way that romantics have (over many generations) striven to re-connect with nature: 

There are many things you can do to bring about a re-connection. Begin by noticing the world around you. By truly looking. By seeing past the surface of things to the level of Spirit. 

At the moment when you go out into nature you see only the surface of things. Trees, grass, water, plants. Yet the reality of these things is far greater. Once you knew this. You can discover it again if you truly wish. 

Next time you are outside look around you. Try to see beyond the surface into the true nature of things you see. Though you may find it difficult to do so at first, in time you will begin to see more. If you continue far enough and deeply enough you will even begin to communicate with the spirit within the things you are observing. In truth you will cease to be observers at all and become part of the thing you are looking at. 

This is what the ancient bards of this land meant when they spoke of having `been` a thing. This was more than a poetic image, but a very real truth. To truly know a thing is to become one with it. Just as to become one with it is to truly know it. When you do this you will begin to understand the true nature of things, and of your own relationship to them. 

I would not say that this is bad advice, or that we should never do it - far from it! And John Matthews is a worthy chap, whose work I have appreciated and learned-from. 

But I would point-out that what he suggests often does not work, and - as a life strategy - it does not work very well... I have tried, and it failed; and (as I said) many people have been recommending this for more than two centuries - and here we are!

I think the root problem is firstly that this strategy strives to sink ourselves into oneness with nature - and therefore leads to all the problems of oneness spirituality. Instead, our attitude ought to be Christian - which entails that we have a relationship with the spiritual world, rather than merging with it. 

And secondly it does so by means of trying to re-shape our perceptions (seeing, hearing, smelling, touch) so that we begin to perceive the underlying spiritual realities - whereas we ought to be directly-knowing spiritual reality. 

Thirdly, it tries to re-connect through feeling, through our emotions; whereas we ought to be doing-so by our thinking: by "primary thinking". 

In combination, it can be seen that the attitude to nature that I believe is necessary - both when we are "in" it, and also when "recollecting in tranquility" our past experiences; is very different from that of traditional (and non-Christian - "perennialist") Romantics, like John Matthews, or many others. 

In times of great fear, especially fear of suffering and death - it is tempting to strive for a solution to fear in indifference-merely. 

I am posting another talk from the delightful John Butler, which he discusses his books, his life, and his spirituality - which I have previously called Christian Zen. 

I call it this because it uses Christian language to describe an 'Eastern' spiritual way that neither wants nor aims at the resurrected life eternal with God, Jesus, and other sons and daughters of God, dwelling in Heaven - that Jesus made possible for those who followed him. 

Instead, JB's desire is for self/ego-less, body-less, peace, stillness, oneness and unity with God and every-thing - which I will tern Nirvana. 

What is instructive about this video is that it seems to make clear why John Butler wants this. He mentions the core problem of life as 'How do you cope with the world' - and the impossibility of escaping from the world due to the constraints of the body. Clearly the hope permanently to be rid of the body is not the same as the hope of resurrection. 

JB also mentions his aim of 'less me, more God' (not my will but God's will) - which equates closeness to God with dissolution of 'me', the self, the distinct ego. 

The great hope is for total and perfect unity - in which whatever makes us distinct and unique is removed. This is holiness. He suggests the special virtues of losing the individual in the community (family, village, nation); absence of criticism between Men; and patient, forbearance and waiting - which he (from experience) regards as better lived in Russia. 

Butler describes his books on Russia (which I have read, and recommend) as describing How spirit may strengthen to bear an unbearable world. 

This phrase is, I think, a great clue to this Christian Zen perspective. It describes the basic stance that 'the world' is intrinsically unbearable, that this un-bearability comes from the detached and observing conscious self; and therefore implies that the best and only hope is to escape the un-bearability by dissolving consciousness (and the underlying self) - so that we will just-be. 

   

By his own account John Butler has had (until recently) an 'unbearable' life of misery, loneliness and depression - alleviated only by the discipline of (oneness-type, 'transcendental') meditation. Some fifty years of meditation practice have enabled him to cope with the world, while he awaits death.

But why did JB experience life as unbearable? Well, his biography shows that this came from within; it came from the way he was and from what he wanted. And the Christian will, naturally, focus on the matter of love - because love is the principle of God's creation. 

Now, for Christians, love ought to be between persons - on earth and in Heaven (because God and Jesus Christ are also persons). But John Butler's aspirational idea of love is not between persons, but a blissful the loss of personhood into oneness. 

In this video; JB describes the great 'love' event of his life. This was a time when he and a woman friend (not his wife) were meditating together, and he experienced a vivid and compelling vision of their two souls leaving their bodies and joining into a single spiritual unity. This led to nothing relational between the two; but triggered JB to leave his wife and led to several years of a life wandering alone and miserable. 

So, the experience of 'love' drove JB further away from the world; because (I would say) this was not relational-love between persons, but was the 'annihilational'-love a loss of self (a microcosm of the hoped-for dissolution into the divine). 

From what I have gathered of John Butler's life (from the several books of his I have read) his only experience of relational love (Christian love) was with his mother; and this was warm, constant and long-lasting. 

Yet, I think this love, because it was with his mother, probably pointed backwards into a lost childhood; rather than forwards into eternity - and (in other of his work) I judge that JB regard all inter-personal and conscious love in terms of a negative attachment to the unbearable world.

He seems to regard Christian love as a narrowly-specific, immature and anthropomorphic perspective on life; something which ought-to-be set-aside in favour of the universal, 'abstract' undifferentiated 'love' of complete unity with the impersonal-and-universal-divine. 

In sum, I believe that (so far as I can tell) John Butler is an example of someone who does not want what Jesus has to offer. He does not, indeed, want to be a Man - because he finds distinct consciousness so unbearable in its suffering, that he would 'hand back the entrance ticket' of becoming a Son of God and return to a situation of pre-creation blissful mere-being. 

I think he regrets being budded-off God, because of the existential loneliness and isolation it engenders (at least in adults); and wishes to lose all awareness of himself as a separate entity - lose all awareness altogether.

From this perspective, this mortal life is nothing but a Vale of Tears; without any essential function or purpose. It is a kind of punishment, or accident; something to be coped-with by learning Not to think. And something from-which death is a deliverance.

For me, none of this is true. I see this incarnated mortal life as having a purpose that is essential to what I most want: which is resurrected life eternal in Heaven with other persons - including at least some of those whom I love from this earthly time. 

I regard this mortal life as made good (albeit intermittently, and temporality) by inter-personal love, I see love of God and Jesus as between me and other persons and living beings; and I see the aim of both earth and Heaven (the thing I most want to 'do') as being creation/ creating from and for this 'web' of loving relationships. 

As I have often said before; it seems apparent that there are some people who are (apparently from young childhood, and perhaps related to the pre-mortal spiritual nature) wanting something very different from the gift that Jesus brought us - and John Butler seems to be one of them. 

Instead of opting-into Heaven, and different from choosing the Hell of opposition to God - these people want to stop being people. 

I regard this as a consequence of the fact that when God (our Heavenly parents) took our primordial and unconscious selves and procreated them into being sons and daughters of God with consciousness and free agency; some regretted the event. 

Among those who regret being sons and daughters of God are those who respond by blaming and hating God and divine creation - these are the demons who work to destroy.

And there is this other group - of whom John Butler (along with perhaps vast numbers of adherents of Eastern religions) is one; who want to return to the state of a primordial and unconscious self. I don't think this is literally possible, because I believe that the sons and daughters of God are eternal.

But God can certainly remove all self-consciousness and all awareness of difference from the sons and daughters of God ; so that after death fully, and to some extent, during mortal life (e.g. in oneness meditation) - Men can blissfully feel and experience themselves as-if they are an impersonal and abstract part of the divine. 

This is not what God most wants for us and from us; but I think it is something he will do for his children who choose to opt-out of Heaven but without being hostile to the Heavenly project. 

    **

Note added. While I believe that all the above applies in an abstract and ideal sense; I think that here-and-now (in these 'end times') it is very difficult for anyone to reject (real) Christianity without damning themselves. 

In other words; as of the conditions in The West in 2021, Christian Zen is mostly in practice anti-Christian. 

When the world is ruled by a demonic cabal - so that all which is mainstream, official, 'approved' is strategically on the side of evil in the spiritual war - then those who reject the gift of Jesus will find it very difficult not to find themselves accepting the assumptions and motivation of those who actively oppose Jesus. 

To put matters differently; because the Christian Zen adherent rejects discernment (i.e. rejects 'judgmentalism') - its becomes all-but impossible for anyone with any kind of engagement with The System (and surely we all depend on The System to keep us alive, and not to kill us) to avoid joining-with the system in pursuit of damnation. 

I would say that discernment of Good from evil has become an absolute necessity in 2021. The default is nowadays to take the side of Satan, and it requires almost an active choice to reject damnation. 

As an example, in another video John Butler demonstrates a belief in the CO2 Global Warming agenda which is deceptive and evil agenda based on several Big Lies; and speaks approvingly of the Extinction Rebellion organization - which is a tool created-by and working-for the goals of the totalitarian world government: the Global Establishment. 

This kind of gross failure of discernment seems almost inevitable when one combines a rejection of judgment with a climate of pervasive authoritarian evil. 

To put it very simply: For most people, most of the time, here-and-now; the choice is binary: Christ or Satan - and those who in other cultures and at other times might genuinely have wanted Nirvana, will sooner or later find themselves wanting Hell.