When I am alone, am I lonely?

I once asked a single friend who rarely dated if she was lonely. “When I look back on my life,” she replied, “I realize that I have spent most of my time alone. But when I think about the times when I was the loneliest, there was usually someone sitting next to me.” It is often easier to feel lonely in a noisy crowd than in an empty house filled with silence. Being alone is a physical condition, but being lonely is an emptiness that affects us emotionally, intellectually or spiritually.

Loneliness becomes more complex with age. In grammar school, loneliness is cured if someone agrees to come outside and play. In college, “playing with someone” is used as a distraction or temporary relief from thinking about the issues that separate us from everyone else. Later in life the escape strategies become more deceptive. People use alcohol, drugs, sex, work, religion, social activities, marriage, children, friendship, pets, music, television or exercise to escape the fear of being lonely. Any external device can be used to alter consciousness or to allow us to feel that we are connected to other people. Human beings were not created as self-sufficient organisms. Food, water and oxygen are required for survival. Perpetuating the species requires the union of egg and sperm. In colder climates, clothing is needed to protect the body from the devastating brutality of nature. Loneliness is a disease that can be fatal, but people who can find happiness and fulfillment alone can always create an environment that eliminates loneliness.

The avoidance of loneliness requires an internal or external connection through the heart, soul and mind to others, the universe, God or oneself. For some, the greatest loneliness is feeling separate from God (which may be an illusion instead of a reality). Many people take the “road most traveled” by thinking that they can avoid loneliness through conformity. Loneliness is a feeling that we are “different” or unconnected to other people. Conformity gives us the false reassurance that we are similar to everyone else. If we look similar to other people, and if our actions are “normal” and our thoughts are shared, then how could we be lonely? Conformity through religion is an effective cure for loneliness because similar people congregate at the same place at the same time to tell each other that their belief systems are shared by the group. Conformity of appearance avoids the fear of being judged negatively for being different. In the 60’s, everyone wore bell-bottoms. It was easier to conform to the rules of fashion than to be judged as being old-fashioned or outdated. In the 50’s, women were judged as being promiscuous if they dared to wear anything other than a one-piece bathing suit to the beach. Yet what is conformity? It is the illusionary reflection of ourselves in other people. If we continually see ourselves in others, then we falsely believe that we are not alone. And if we are not alone, then how could we be lonely?

I once asked a male friend why he was dating someone who he had nothing in common with and he replied, “I’m lonely. When I am with her I feel less alone.” Why do we believe that finding a mate solves the problem of loneliness? My friend’s relationship confused me because he should have felt lonelier in this relationship because none of his values were shared. Yet, for him, a physical connection overshadowed the need to connect intellectually or spiritually.

I once confessed to a group of people at my ski house that I wanted to share my life with someone similar to myself. I was immediately criticized. “How could you possibly desire someone similar? I want someone who is the complete opposite of myself,” adamantly replied a woman in the group. I had a difficult time understanding her point of view. With the goal of self-improvement, we spend our entire lives incorporating attributes that we find admirable and rejecting personality characteristics that we find offensive. Wouldn’t we be less lonely with someone who shared the values and attributes that we have chosen to accept? By seeking someone with opposite personality characteristics, aren’t we indirectly saying that we don’t desire the qualities we have developed in ourselves? Is it possible that we are admitting that being alone makes us lonely?

In Symposium, Plato makes the argument that we desire and love the attributes we lack, rather than the characteristics that we already possess. Plato wrote that “love is wanting something that you do not currently possess,” and the implication is that we seek to compensate for our weaknesses by finding those strengths externally. The basic argument -- that if a person currently possesses a certain quality, he would have no desire to acquire it -- is generally true. For example, a strong man does not desire strength because he already has it. A beautiful woman may not desire beauty because she already possesses it. Yet, there are a few fallacies with this generalization. First of all, we may desire to acquire attributes that we lack only if they are characteristics we want but have been unable to obtain. We surely would not desire to acquire a negative attribute, such as hatred, even though we may not already possess it. Second, this argument is too simplistic for love. With respect to a potential partner, we do not love someone simply because this person has characteristics that we do not possess. If this were the case, none of our basic values would be shared. For example, if we possessed honesty, we would not seek someone who possessed the opposite character trait. If we were open-minded and extroverted, we would not necessarily seek someone who is closed-minded and introverted. Furthermore, even if we desire a characteristic that we do not currently possess, why would we seek this attribute in another human being instead of trying to develop it ourselves? The presence of the personality trait in another person does not allow us to “own” the characteristic; it only ensures that we will be exposed to this particular attribute when we interact with the other person.

I understand the need to share life with someone who complements our personality traits, but I don’t understand why we would seek our opposite. I do believe that complementary attributes add depth and richness to a relationship. For example, if someone appreciates the arts and performs modern dance, it could be extremely fulfilling to find someone who also appreciates the arts but has a degree in art history. These two people share their appreciation of artistic endeavors but each person’s expertise is different. At the other end of the spectrum is someone who cannot appreciate the arts at all. How is a relationship enhanced when the woman is inspired by art and music, while the man is completely consumed by sports? The compromise appears to be a separation and increased loneliness, rather than unity. On a Sunday afternoon, the woman spends her time at an art gallery, while the man attends a game at the stadium or is mesmerized by a wrestling match on TV.

Creating a fulfilling relationship is similar to creating a delicious recipe. Some ingredients go well together, while the addition of others can create something extremely distasteful. It doesn’t mean that the additional ingredients are “bad,” it just means that when the ingredients come together, the combination can be undesirable. For example, peanut butter by itself is delicious. Asparagus, by itself, is also appetizing. Yet when you combine peanut butter with asparagus, the result can be catastrophic. Although the ingredients alone are favorable, together they can be repulsive. Peanut butter needs the appropriate complementary ingredients to enhance the end result. Peanut butter with jelly or bananas can be better than peanut butter by itself and asparagus with hollandaise can improve the taste of the asparagus. Similarly, a relationship can be enhanced when complementary “ingredients” or personality characteristics come together as one. In fact, a complementary connection may be the perfect cure for loneliness. There is an acceptance of the “basics” and the union of complementary interests, beliefs or values allows the relationship to transcend to a higher level.

Being physically alone is simple; it means that there is no other human being nearby. However, loneliness is only one of many feelings that can accompany the physical isolation. A person who is alone in a room praying to God may not feel lonely at all; and a person in a state of meditation can feel a sense of fulfillment and connection that transcends the human experience. The most enriching experience on earth can happen while someone is alone in nature because there can be an intense spiritual connection with the perfection of the universe.

If someone is lonely while being alone, the most transparent solution may be to invite another person to join the experience; but this solution is only physical. If the loneliness results from feeling alone emotionally, intellectually or spiritually, another person can actually exacerbate the loneliness. Loneliness is most effectively eliminated by connecting with something or someone that has similar ideas, values, beliefs or perceptions.

A scene from the movie Mahogany effectively illustrates this point. She was trying to prove that she wasn’t lonely because she was accepted by strangers. “Everybody loves me. I will never be lonely because I am a success!” she screamed. As her lover saved himself by leaving her behind, he retorted that no matter how popular she became, it would never cure her loneliness because “success means nothing without someone you love to share it with.” External acceptance is a disguise that hides the need for an intimate connection with another human being. Some people seek fame, popularity or recognition as a substitute for love and as an illusionary cure for loneliness. The saddest moment is when someone finally realizes that external “cures” cannot fill an emptiness that resides at the core of the soul.

I feel lonelier with people who cannot accept my individuality than when I am physically alone. I accept me. If there are actions I don’t accept, I change them. When I am sitting alone in my house, I find comfort in knowing that there is at least one person in the room who does not want me to be someone I am not. I don’t date often because I am usually lonelier socializing with someone who wants me to “fit in.” I’ve always accepted the fact that I am different and that I don’t always conform to other people’s expectations. Connecting with other people has always been one of the most fulfilling experiences of my life; but it is a rare event, which is why it is so special. I am often alone without being lonely and I feel that I can cure loneliness only by being selective about whom I choose to spend time with. The problem isn’t solved by letting more people in. The solution is to share yourself, your dreams, and your values with people who can truly appreciate them.

A person who is not lonely alone may still feel intense loneliness if there is no one to communicate with. For example, the people who travel a path toward spiritual growth or enlightenment often become frustrated because it is difficult to find “classmates” or “teachers” who can enhance the journey. These people can cure their loneliness through internal fulfillment but may become lonely if they are unable to connect with like-minded individuals. In other words, although being alone with spiritual thoughts does not cause internal loneliness, there can be an external loneliness that is difficult to cure (i.e., being alone is not enough). Furthermore, this external loneliness can grow exponentially if the person continually retreats to the internally created “safe environment” that enables further spiritual growth (in an effort to increase self-fulfillment and reduce loneliness).

Unwittingly, these spiritual people may travel farther down the “road less traveled,” which further separates them the majority. They may actually reach a point where external connections feel impossible. Their only cure for an external solution is by reading spiritual literature or by using concentrated efforts to find the minority that shares similar belief systems. These people also need to accept that the majority may not connect with them intellectually or spiritually but there are still people whose company can be extremely fulfilling. For example, many people may not be able to teach wisdom, but if they are caring people, they can be appreciated for their generosity, compassion and ability to love. Not everyone has to connect on every level and it is important to realize that we may never find our spiritual clones.

Some people seek therapy to cure feelings of loneliness. Once a week, someone is paid to listen to our problems and help us find solutions. Therapy can be an effective process for reducing loneliness, but it can also increase it. We expect that the therapist will help us, understand us, and provide us with empathy and compassion. However, if the wrong therapist is chosen or if the person is facing unique problems that are misunderstood by the therapist, the patient can end up feeling more alone. Western medicine has the tendency to diagnose and prescribe. If a patient is on a spiritual path, these methods can be counter-productive. There is no standard medical diagnosis and no chemical cures. This person may actually need a shaman, rather than a psychologist, and in the Western world, these types of “therapists” are difficult to find.

The ultimate solution for loneliness is to first feel comfortable alone by finding spiritual fulfillment that is not dependent on others. After discovering internal peace of mind, we can increase our happiness and reduce our loneliness by sharing ourselves with other people. Yet, it is important to understand that loneliness is not necessarily cured by other people -- it can actually be created by them. Nothing is lonelier than pulling down the covers, and sliding into bed next to someone who makes you feel alone. Being alone is not a physical condition; it is only feeling lonely in the company of others.

All Trails Converge

Religious Tolerance

I was raised Jewish and attended Sunday School until I was 16. From the beginning, I was never comfortable with organized religion. I believed that I should be free to find my own path using religion, philosophy, history and science as a foundation for the development of my own spiritual beliefs. I was not convinced that any one religion had all the answers to the questions about life, death, ethics and morality. Instead, I believed that all religions offered valuable insights about spirituality.

During my early years, I lived in an anti-Semitic area and I was one of only two Jewish people in my class. On the way to school, people would pitch pennies at me and call me a Jew. I was laughed at and ridiculed for being different. At a fifth grade party, they played a song that ended with the words, “Protestants hate the Catholics but everybody hates the Jews,” and the entire class pointed at me and laughed. I quickly ran outside, hid behind a tree and cried. I couldn’t understand why anyone would hate me simply because I was Jewish.

The primary reason that I never understood anti-Semitism was based on the fact that Jesus was born Jewish. If Jesus chose Judaism, why would Christians judge the religion harshly? The most articulate representation of the concept of unification was on September 16, 1938 by Pope Pius XI when he received a Belgium refugee at the Vatican. During a time of unprecedented anti-Semitism in Europe and after Jews had been sent to Polish ghettos and German concentration camps, Pope Pius XI stated, “Be careful, Abraham really is our patriarch, our ancestor. Anti-Semitism is not compatible with the sublime reality alluded to in this text. Anti-Semitism is an odious movement that we Christians must have nothing to do with. Anti-Semitism is intolerable. All of us are spiritually Semites.” Pope Pius XI died in February 1939, so even though he requested three Jesuits to draft an encyclical that was hostile to Fascism and Anti-Semitism, it was never written. His successor, Pope Pius XII was silent on the issue and to this day, the encyclical has never been published by the Vatican.

It’s hard for me to believe that God or a higher power in the universe would choose one religion over another. If there is one God and if this same God loves and is a part of every human being, then wouldn’t God be represented by all belief systems? Wouldn’t God love practitioners of all religions? In the book, The 72 Names of God, Yehuda Berg says, “God never created religion. Humans did. And this human-made invention has done nothing but create separation between people. Tragically, more blood has been spilled on behalf of religion than from all other diseases and crimes combined. Religion fosters hatred. It gives rise to war and genocide – all in the name of God. The fact of the matter is that divine wisdom, by its very nature, can evoke only harmony between people. The arousal of love and peace is an intrinsic effect of a genuine spiritual wisdom. It naturally builds bridges between people of opposite faiths. It inherently embraces and empowers people.”

In the late 1980’s, I tried to create a unique religion that focused on the similarities among religions, instead of the differences. I called the religion “Pluritarianism” and decided that the religion would contain only the principles that were common to existing organized religions. I initially thought there would be a number of similarities; but since most religions are based on ritual, culture and heritage, the expression of love, compassion, patience, forgiveness, and responsibility for actions (or karma) appeared to be the only true similarities. I also found that the majority of religions believe that there is a greater power in the Universe (whether it is God(s), Allah or Nirvana) and most believe in the immortality of the soul.

Furthermore, two-thirds of the world’s population believes in reincarnation. According to Charles Breax, the concept of reincarnation has been prevalent in a large number of religions and ancient cultures including: Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, the American Indians, Pre-Columbian cultures, the Polynesian Kahunas, the Gauls, the Druids, the Orphics, the Pythagoreans, the Platonists, the Essenes, the Pharisees, the Karaites, and the Kabbalists in the Jewish religion. Reincarnation was also originally part of the Christian religion until 553 A.D. when it was deemed heretical by the Second Council of Constantinople. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle also believed in reincarnation.

The Dalai Lama has often talked about the similarities among religions. In An Open Heart, he says, “I believe that the methods by which we increase our altruism, our sense of caring for others and developing the attitude that our own individual concerns are less important than those of others, are common to all major religious traditions. Though we may find differences in philosophical views and rites, the essential message of all religions is very much the same.”

The desire to develop my own system of beliefs led to intense criticism from religious practitioners. “You can’t just believe what you want to believe,” argued a previous colleague. “Religion is not like a cafeteria plan. If there isn’t a sacred book that states your belief systems, they cannot be valid.” According to my colleague, the freedom of speech and belief systems did not grant me the right to believe in different principles from a variety of religions. Either I had to accept a religion intact, or I had no religion at all.

If my previous colleague is right, then it is true; I have no religion. Yet, I am not an atheist or agnostic. If I don’t have a religion, what do I have? I thought I could learn more by studying the role of religion throughout history. During the period of Henry VIII, at different times, Protestants were persecuted for questioning Catholicism and Catholics were executed if they showed allegiance to the Pope. Leaders believed that peace could be maintained only if everyone believed the same thing (which led to the creation of the Church of England).

Throughout the ages, religious wars were fought in “the name of God” to convert people to a similar belief system. Even though the 10 commandments state, “Thou shalt not kill,” it appears that there was an exception if one religion heard God’s words more “correctly” than another religion. According to Dostoyevsky, “The craving for community of worship is the chief misery of every man individually and of all humanity from the beginning of time. For the sake of common worship they’ve slain each other with the sword. They have set up gods and challenged one another, by saying: put away your gods and come and worship ours, or we will kill you and your gods.”

The power of the church over citizen’s affairs also changed dramatically though time. In ancient Greece, the State ruled. Over time, in many countries, the Church gained more power than the State (e.g., during the Inquisition). In England, under the Act of Supremacy, the State became the Church. When the US was formed, the separation of Church and State was one of its founding principles. In Nazi Germany, the State once again became the Church. Article XXX of the German Church Regulations stated, “The Christian cross is to be removed from all churches and cathedrals and is to be replaced by the immortal symbol of Germany, the swastika.” Joseph Goebbels, the head of German propaganda stated, “Our Fuhrer is the intermediary between his people in the form of God. Everything the Fuhrer utters is religion in the highest sense.” Every day in German schools, the children sung, “Adolf Hitler is our savior, our hero. He is the noblest being in the whole wide world. For Hitler, we live. For Hitler, we die. Our Hitler is our Lord, who rules a brave new world.” The German government convinced its citizens that the State is the only church and the head of the State is the voice of God.

Lately, I have questioned the difference between religion and spirituality. Am I spiritual instead of religious? Using history as a guide, organized religion in Europe was used as a political tool or as a way of controlling behavior, rather than as a route toward spirituality. On the other hand, Eastern religions (and religious mysticism) appear to be more spiritual. They seem to be more accepting of different paths toward the same goal. When I studied Hinduism, I found a philosophy that summarized this tolerance. In Huston Smith’s, The World’s Religions, he states that the Hindu religion believes that “various major religions are alternate paths to the same goal. To claim salvation as the monopoly of any one religion is like claiming that God can be found in this room and not the next… those who circle the mountain trying to bring others around to their paths are not climbing.” From the beginning, the Hindu Vedas announced, “the various religions are but different languages through which God speaks to the human heart. Truth is one; sages call it by different names.” The Hindus further believe that “it is possible to climb life’s mountain from any side but when the top is reached, the trails converge. At the base, in the foothills of theology, ritual, and organizational structure the religions are distinct. Differences in culture, history, geography and collective temperament all make for diverse starting points. Far from being deplorable, this is good; it adds richness to the totality of the human venture.” In Ramakrishna’s words, “God has made different religions to suit different aspirations, times and countries. All doctrines are only so many paths; but a path is by no means God himself. Indeed one can reach God if one follows any of the paths with whole-hearted devotion. One may eat a cake with icing either straight or sidewise. It will taste sweet either way.” Gandhi concurred by saying, “Religions are different roads converging upon the same point. What does it matter that we take different roads as long as we reach the same goal?”

The tolerance of all religions is also expressed in Buddhism. The Dalai Lama says, “My meetings with many different sorts of people the world over have, however, helped me realized that there are other faiths, and other cultures, no less capable than mine of enabling individuals to lead constructive and satisfying lives. What is more, I have come to the conclusion that whether or not a person is a religious believer does not matter much. Far more important is that they be a good human being.” He goes on to say; “Those who are dedicated practitioners meanwhile follow a multiplicity of religions paths. From this, it becomes clear that given our diversity, no single religion satisfies all humanity… Actually, I believe that if we consider the world’s major religions from the widest perspective, we find that they are all – Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, and the others – directed toward helping human beings achieve lasting happiness. And each of them is, in my opinion, capable of facilitating this. Under such circumstances, a variety of religions (each of which promotes the same basic values after all) is both desirable and useful.”

Muhammad also believed in religious tolerance. He decreed that the Jews and Christians should have an equal right to practice their religion as freely as the Muslims. Even conquered nations were permitted freedom of worship and interference with their liberty of conscience was regarded as a direct contravention of Islamic law. Once when a deputy of Christians visited him, Muhammad invited them to conduct their service in his mosque, adding, “It is a place consecrated to God.”

In The History of God, Karen Armstrong summarizes the beliefs of an Islam mystic. She says, “Ibn al-Arabi could not accept the idea that one single human being, however holy, could express the infinite reality of God. Instead he believed that each human person was a unique avatar of the divine…Since each man and woman had had a unique experience of God, it followed that no one religion could express the whole of the divine mystery. There was no objective truth about God to which all must subscribe; since this God transcended the category of personality, predictions about his behavior and inclinations were impossible. Any consequent chauvinism about one’s faith at the expense of other people’s was obviously unacceptable, since no one religion had the whole truth about God…The man of God was equally at home in synagogue, temple, church and mosque, since all provided a valid apprehension of God. Ibn al-Arabi often used the phrase ‘the God created by the faiths’…Ibn al-Arabi gave this advice: Do not attach yourself to any particular creed exclusively, so that you may disbelieve all the rest; otherwise you will lose much good, nay, you will fail to recognize the real truth of the matter. God, the omnipresent and omnipotent, is not limited by any one creed.”

The Word of God

Research of history, religion, philosophy, and mysticism has made me realize that I am not seeking religion, I am seeking spirituality and I have the freedom and right to believe anything I want to believe. I don’t need a sacred book to tell me what is right and wrong or what I can eat, drink or perform sexually. My own answers are derived by listening to my head, heart and conscience. Isn’t a sacred book based on words that are inspired by God? Aren’t we all inspired by God? Why would one person hear the words more clearly than another? Don’t we all have our own perceptions that bias any information that we hear? Even if we hear the exact same words, isn’t it possible that we might interpret them differently?

While God (or a higher power) is the foundation for most religions, religion is very different from God. The concept of “a creator” may be consistent but the “word of God” is interpreted very differently. In fact, the “word of God” is strongly influenced by translation and interpretation. The Islam religion does not allow translations of the Koran from Arabic to minimize misinterpretations. The Bible, on the other hand, varies tremendously. In searching for the quote on love from St. Paul, every interpretation I found was worded differently. Some religious leaders have also changed the wording of “thou shalt not kill” to “thou shalt not murder.” One word clearly changes the intent of the “word of God.”

Correspondingly, several scholars spent seven years translating only one passage in the Bible. It was initially translated as “Thou shalt choose good over evil” or “Thou must choose good over evil.” After rigorously translating the passage in the original language of the scriptures, the scholars finally realized that the correct translation was “Thou mayest choose good over evil.” The translation of this one word in the Bible completely changes God’s message because it emphasizes the gift of free will instead of reflecting a “paternal” command for obedience. Humanity was given the gift of being able to choose good or evil and spiritually, we are not told that we have to be good (in fact, good and evil cannot exist without the freedom to disobey). This interpretation of the Biblical passage shows the beauty of the gift of free will and tells us that in the “eyes” of the creator, this gift was more important than the possibility that humankind might choose evil over good.

Scott Peck also cites a similar example. He says that one of the tests of the translation of the Bible was to take the Greek version of a phrase and translate it back to the original language of the Bible, which was Aramaic. In doing so, several scholars found that the phrase “The Kingdom is within you” is more accurately translated as “The Kingdom is among you.” One word changes the belief that God manifests Himself in each person individually to the theory that God manifests Himself in all persons collectively.

I usually avoid having religious discussions with my friends. Over time, I have realized that religious opinions are not the same as other opinions. They are treated like facts. A fact has a right or wrong answer, whereas an opinion is subject to interpretation. Intellectually, people can tolerate two different opinions when it is clear there is no right answer at the time. For instance, if two people are trying to predict tomorrow’s weather, one person may predict rain and another person may predict sun. Twenty-four hours later, there will be a right answer when the weather becomes a fact. It will either rain or be sunny. However, since that answer is not known at the time, both opinions are accepted.

Yet, when opinions are religious, many people treat their opinions as though they are facts by believing that some opinions are right and other opinions are wrong. For example, in the 21^st century, there is no scientific proof that heaven exists. Therefore, the existence of heaven is not a fact, and there is no right or wrong answer. Objectively, there either is a heaven or there is not a heaven, but we may not know this answer while we are alive on earth. In theory, any opinion is valid, and if there is a disagreement, two people should be able to agree to disagree. Religious discussions, however, usually end up in heated arguments about which “opinion” is right or wrong. Unfortunately, if people believe that their religious opinions are facts, we will never be able to accept differences in people’s belief systems.

It is also possible that any opinion is right. Consciousness is extremely powerful and thus, we may find exactly what we think we will find. If some people believe that heaven is sunny with mountains, they may find that image at death. If other people believe that heaven is an island in the middle of the ocean, they may find a heaven that looks like Tahiti. It is possible that reality in another dimension may be influenced by each person’s belief systems. If someone believes that Jesus is the Son of God, he or she may meet Jesus. If someone does not, Jesus may not appear. It doesn’t mean that either opinion is right or wrong; it only means that people may find exactly what they believe.

The Evolution of Religion

Religion in ancient times had to accomplish many objectives: 1) It served as the basis for ritual, culture and tradition, 2) It established a code of behavior that served as the legal system for the times, and 3) It provided humankind with answers to questions that had no answers. Religion removed the uncertainty of the universe and made people feel that even during the worst periods of life, there was a greater power that offered love, compassion and justice. In many ways, religion served to perpetuate the species by giving purpose to life and death. In modern times, the legal system has replaced religion as the governing authority for guiding behavior. If people steal, they end up in jail, regardless of their religious orientation. On the other hand, religion still offers guidance for ethical behavior. It is illegal to ignore a red light, but it may not be unethical. It is legal to avoid paying your debts through bankruptcy, but the action is not necessarily ethical.

I’ve always wondered why religions don’t evolve over time. If religion continues to focus on the origin of the universe or the transcendence of the soul, it seems that science may eventually turn many religious opinions into fact. Galileo was imprisoned for heresy for publishing the Copernicus theory that the sun was the center of the universe. According to religious belief, the earth was the center of the universe, not the sun. In 1633, Galileo was summoned before the Inquisition and was forced to recant his belief in the Copernican theory. Since he refused to change his beliefs, he remained under house arrest for the rest of his life. After his death, scientific proof of the galaxy required a different interpretation of the “word of God” when it was proven that the earth revolves around the sun. Yet, it wasn’t until November of 1992 that the Church finally exonerated Galileo of his accused heresy.

Eventually, science may actually be able to measure the presence and journey of a soul. If a soul is energy, perhaps we just don’t have the right tools to measure that type of energy. Molecules existed long before there were microscopes to view them. Our inability to study molecules did not mean that molecules didn’t exist; it just meant that we hadn’t yet figured out how to measure them.

The 10 Commandments

In the Western World, the most sacred universal code of behavior appears to be presented in the Ten Commandments. Yet, if God handed Moses only 10 rules that were intended to serve as the ultimate guide for all human behavior, then why were they specific to the times?

Why is the 10^th commandment worded, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.” In the 21^st century most people don’t even have a manservant, maidservant, ox or ass, and most property laws already cover the illegal possession of another person’s property. In addition, why is the word “wife” included in a list of possessions and why does the commandment assume that the neighbor is a man? The use of the word “covet” is also interesting, since it means that a person only desires these things. Coveting something is defined as wanting something that does not belong to you. Therefore, this commandment does not specifically say that someone shouldn’t steal or commit adultery (which are stated in other commandments). Instead, the 10^th commandment is a broad statement that someone should not desire the “possessions” of another person. In general, I don’t understand why there is anything wrong with coveting a possession that belongs to someone else because one person can always offer to buy the possession at a very high price. For example, if one neighbor desires another neighbor’s house, he can offer to buy it for double its value. Many people would be extremely happy that their houses were “coveted” by their neighbors because they could receive a much higher price than the market would bear. Some people define coveting as greed but greed has a different definition. Greed is the “excessive desire for getting or having wealth; desire for more than one needs or deserves.” In my opinion, greed is more “sinful” than coveting.

There are other commandments that appear to be too specific. Why is the fourth commandment, “Honor thy mother and father,” instead of proclaiming that we should honor all human beings (which would also cover the mother and father)? This commandment is also questionable based on the definition of the word “honor.” If honoring someone is a general respect for the person, then it is fair that we should “honor” people, regardless of their actions. However, according to Webster’s Dictionary, honor means “high regard, adherence to principles considered right, and integrity.” Based on this definition, should we “honor” our father if he sexually abuses us? Should we “honor” our mother if she abandons us? Should Sybil (the patient with 13 multiple personalities) have honored her mother after she was beaten, locked in a crate, hung by a hook, forced to have daily enemas, sexually molested, and verbally abused for years? Honor appears to be earned, rather than granted unconditionally. Someone who has been abused by a parent should not be required to “honor” that parent. Even more questionable is the passage that follows the 2nd commandment, where the Bible says, “I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation…” Does this mean that Sybil is not only required to honor her mother but that she will also be punished for her mother’s sins?

I am also confused about the first commandment, which is worded, “I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other Gods before me.” God should represent all religions. Thus, it is difficult to believe that God would judge Buddhism harshly because they do not profess the existence of one superior God that rules the universe or that Hinduism, Indian and tribal religions would be judged negatively merely because they believe in multiple Gods (which could just be separate aspects of the “one” God principle). Even Christians, who believe in this commandment, worship Jesus as God (and many people believe Jesus is God). Although the Christian religion officially states that Jesus is an aspect of God (or the son of God), in essence, they treat him the same way as others treat God. They pray to him, they ask him for salvation, and they call him The Lord. Even if Jesus is only an aspect of God, how is this concept different from other religions that believe in multiple Gods?

The Bible may be well written, but it seems that some of these 10 commandments are redundant. If someone does not covet a neighbor’s possessions, then surely this person would not want to steal them. Yet, there is a separate commandment that says “thou shalt not steal.” Furthermore, why is the 6^th commandment “thou shalt not commit adultery” if there is already a commandment that says “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife?”

I also don’t understand the commandment, “Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.” Does God favor one holy day over another? Even the one commandment that most people agree with, “Thou shalt not kill,” is subject to interpretation under most legal systems. Killing is not illegal; murdering is illegal. Killing in the name of war or self-defense is not even considered a crime. Furthermore, if killing is wrong, how do we justify killing animals or other living things?

It seems that God, with all of his wisdom, would have developed a code that applied to all human beings, regardless of specific religious orientation, culture or historical era. In general, if there were only one commandment that said “thou shalt not cause pain to any human being (including yourself),” seven of the 10 commandments would be covered.

If there were a spiritual 10 commandments (separate from the rules of the legal system), it seems that they would be extremely general and would apply to people of all faiths and cultures. In my opinion, if a supreme being had only ten things to say, “He” might say something similar to the following:

1. Love and respect humankind unconditionally, including yourself.

2. Do not judge other people simply because their beliefs and behavior are different, unusual or unexpected; avoid all forms of prejudice.
3. Show compassion and empathy for each person’s suffering.
4. Be patient and kind -- help make life a little easier for everyone.
5. Do not intentionally cause pain for any human being.
6. Forgive all who have wronged you and forgive yourself by feeling remorse. Do not commit revenge upon another human being.
7. Give others the same love that you desire yourself and treat others the same way that you would want to be treated.
8. Trust there is true justice and balance in the universe; murder, stealing, lying, or treating others with cruelty will eventually harm you because you are ultimately held accountable for all your actions; at some point, the pain you cause others will someday be inflicted upon you.
9. Treat everyone equally; don’t try to make yourself feel superior by degrading others.
10. Understand that universal harmony can be achieved through the acceptance and unity of humankind, the universe and nature; connect with all emotionally, mentally and spiritually.

It seems that most infractions are covered under those ten guidelines. While adultery is not mentioned, it is a violation only if it imposes pain upon another human being. An open marriage where both parties agreed to see other people would not violate the guidelines because the actions would not cause pain to either person. The obedience to God or holy days is also not mentioned because it is assumed to be a private matter that is resolved between the individual and his or her definition of the supreme energy force of the universe.

The Convergence of Religion

In the future, all trails may converge as religions evolve toward a focus on spirituality and love for humankind and the universe. Instead of focusing on what happened before we arrived or what will happen after we leave, the emphasis may be on how we conduct our lives while we are here. Similar to the Dalai Lama’s observations, religion may offer guidelines on how to attain personal enlightenment and lasting happiness every moment that we are alive. Culture, ritual and tradition may be specific to each religion but the basic tenets for achieving love, kindness, compassion, and happiness could be shared.

This may be a utopian view of world religions because it assumes that differences can be put aside for the greater benefit of humankind. Yet, if religions do not evolve, we may find that many people will seek their own path in life without the benefit of the rich cultural traditions and rituals that religions can offer. I don’t remember much about my religious education but I remember that we always danced and sang. I remember that my teachers told me stories about the religion’s history. I know I was given a foundation for ethics and morality, but it focused on the process for determining how to tell the difference between right and wrong without providing a detailed list of rules and regulations. Religion can never have the answers for every situation that we face in life. In general, any educational program should teach us how to think about problems without giving us an answer for every possible question.

Spiritual ritual is good for the soul. The Essenes, the Mayans and the Indians understood this intimately. According to Tamar Frankiel, “Rituals are often rooted in ancient spiritual practices and are maintained simply as traditions… Humans need to connect with natural rhythms, with a sense of heritage, and with their own bodies in a sacred way. Rituals enable us to do this. There is an even deeper dimension to ritual. Rituals give patterns or templates of a tradition physical, bodily form. They are the architecture of energy. They are rich in metaphor, symbol, and allusion because metaphor is the link between ideas in the mind and the physical and emotional in the body… Every ritual has its repertoire of metaphors that connect us to untold depths within ourselves, enabling us to embrace the collective reality of humanity… Many traditions include rhythm, chant, melody, and dance as part of ritual and liturgy. Music not only expresses heights of spiritual experience for some people, but also can aid in healing and in expanding consciousness, which can then lead people further on their search for connection with God. The vibrations of music enter the body in a different way than intellectual insights.” Correspondingly, Joseph Campbell says, “A ritual can be defined as an enactment of a myth. By participating in a ritual, you are actually experiencing a mythological life. And it’s out of that participation that one can learn to live spiritually.”

Religious and spiritual rituals do not have to be at opposite ends of the spectrum; they could be combined as one. A Jewish person should be able to attend a Christian service without feeling alienated. If God were there wouldn’t He want to be shared with everyone? And why would God confine Himself to a building? In mythology, they describe God as a sphere whose center is everywhere and circumference is nowhere. God, or a universal power, is a part of every human being, whether they are in a church or a garden. Individuals need to free to express spirituality through any religion, in any place and at any time.

Most of my friends call themselves spiritual instead of religious. They have rejected organized religion because it was too confining. If they want to pray in God’s creation (nature) instead of man’s creation (church or temple), they think they are not religious. If they want to pray on Tuesday instead of Sunday, they think they are not religious. I think it is interesting that when I ask people if they are religious, their first response is “No, I am not religious. I don’t go to church.” Or the reverse, “Yes I am religious. I go to church every Sunday.” Is it the act of going to church that makes us religious? If someone is unethical, the attendance at a religious service will never solve the problem and confession is meaningless if the person doesn’t feel remorse. Instead, the confession is a statement of memorized words that aren’t even true. There are no “loopholes” in becoming spiritual and there are no short cuts to heaven. Right and wrong evolve all the time and the gray line between good and evil gets larger every day. For example, when the Bible was written, our sacred religious leaders could never have considered the ethics of cloning a human being.

According to the Bible, we were all created in God’s image. If we all share His image, then God could never be exclusive or judgmental. He is like a parent who loves all of his children equally. If God refuses to judge, then why should we? If God is willing to accept everyone, then why can’t all religions be tolerant of each other? Shouldn’t we be striving to reach the top of the mountain where all trails converge instead of focusing on where we started? As the Dalai Lama so beautifully stated, shouldn’t we just be striving to be good human beings?

Religion may provide a path to God but the path will be traveled only if we have a strong commitment to reach its pinnacle. God doesn’t sit at the end of the path waiting for our arrival. He is there every step of the way -- helping us stand up when we fall down and helping us to appreciate the incredible beauty of the journey along the way.

Does God Exist?

A State of Non-Existence

Are we certain that a supreme being exists in this universe? Or could it be possible that we created the concept of God because we can’t conceive the end of our existence? Can we actually picture a state of nothingness? Non-existence would be similar to falling into a deep sleep forever and the essence of our consciousness would be gone. We would cease to exist on any level. Why would we go through the pain of life only to feel nothing when it is over? All the lessons in life would be wasted (if we failed to share our wisdom with others). Why would a hero’s journey be a life lived in self-discovery (as stated by Joseph Campbell) if the end result of all that work is non-existence? It seems like such an illogical concept. Since we can see that every creation on this planet is miraculous and perfectly designed, why would the creation of humanity have a purposeless ending?

The idea of God makes us think that if He exists invisibly, then we could also exist without being physically seen. Without the concept of God or a higher power, being alone would really be lonely. The collective unconscious is also illogical. If human beings cease to exist, there could not be a collective unconscious to tap into.

If the only reality is our physical state of being, how do we explain unexplained phenomena that have been documented through time? There are many documented cases of paranormal activity that seem inconsistent with the non-existence of another dimension. Near-death experiences (NDE’s) and out-of-body experiences also cannot be explained. During NDE’s, these people are clinically dead so we would have to conclude that some element of our physical consciousness remains alive when our bodies die. Not only does this energy survive longer but it also has similar experiences to everyone else who has been pronounced clinically dead (even though the circumstances of death are extremely different and belief systems vary considerably). Instead of believing that this energy goes on, we would have to conclude that it remains “alive” for only a few minutes and then disappears into nothingness. Without a spiritual body, out-of-body experiences would have be similar to dreams and even though people can explain physical events that they did not witness while they were awake, we would have to assume that powerful “dreams” allow our minds to transcend the physical world’s rules about time and space.

Why would most religions or ancient traditions believe in a higher power if we just end up in a state of nothingness? The enduring myths of Heaven and God have existed in diverse cultures and societies since the beginning of time (a 1994 Gallup Poll showed that 90% of Americans believe in Heaven). According to Joseph Campbell, there is usually an element of truth in all great myths. Archeologist Edward Thompson believed that myths could be true. When he heard a Mayan myth of a well that was used for the drowning of virgins who were weighted down with gold jewelry to ensure that they would sink, he spent years looking for this well. Everyone told him he was crazy because the story was only a fairytale but he refused to be derailed. He learned about a great ruined Mayan city in the Yucatan jungle called Chichen Itza (which means the mouth of the well). He spent five years excavating the largest of two of the wells. When his money was about to run out, he finally found the bones and gold jewelry at the bottom of the well. Furthermore, even though everyone believed the city of Troy in Homer’s Iliad was only a myth, Heinrich Schliemann found evidence that the city existed on the western shores of Turkey.

Faith in God

I’m not clear about the definition of God. To some people, he is a human-like figure in a spiritual form. To others, he is just the energy of everyone who is alive or dead. Many people believe that a spark from God is in every soul (in the form of a hologram), which is often called the Holy Spirit. He has also been described as love. Some individuals describe God as the representation of beauty, goodness, purity, and perfection. Others believe that God is the unity of all living things. Do we all just believe what we want to believe? Could our faith be completely wrong?

Faith is stronger than reason. When you talk to people who are committed to their faith, they tell you that they have no doubt about their belief in God. Their belief in God is not an opinion -- it is a known fact. When Carl Jung was 83, he was asked if he believed in God and replied, “We use the word ‘believe’ when we think of something as true but for which we do not yet have a substantial body of evidence to support it. No, no I don’t believe in God. I know there is a God.” Even Einstein said that the more he studied the physical universe, the more he believed in a spiritual God and many scientists are now coming to the conclusion that there is a unifying energy force underlying the existence of all matter. Spirituality and science are finally converging, instead of being isolated at opposite ends of the spectrum (though science is linear and spirituality is non-linear).

Faith is different from belief. Belief means that one accepts the principles that are taught by others, whereas faith results from direct, personal experience, which leads to a state of “knowing.” Or as Wayne Dyer explains, “Beliefs stem from the experiences and testimony of others who in one way or another have attempted to persuade you of their truths…You have faith that you can ride a bicycle not because of the testimony or experiences of others, but because you have made conscious contact with bicycle riding. Your experience has provided you with faith in this endeavor. It is not because of any evidence that has been presented to you verifying the existence of balance laws, or because others have persuaded you that balancing is a possibility for you, or even because everyone else around you is dutifully riding their bicycles. It is your knowing because of your direct experience and nothing more that gives you faith.” Belief in God means that you trust that the teachings of your religion, family, or society are true. Faith in God means that you have personally experienced the “oneness” of the presence of a supreme being.

Visions of Another World

Perfectly sober and mentally stable, I saw another world one night. Something switched in my perception of the physical reality. I was wide-awake in my bed with the lights out and I could see thousands of discrete, transparent lights with semi-human shapes traveling at an incredible rate of speed through the ceiling of my apartment. They didn’t notice me at all. It seemed like they were using the space in my apartment as some sort of highway. They were traveling faster than I had ever seen any entity travel and there were thousands of them in my apartment at one time. The array of colors surprised me. Why were all of these entities a different color and where were they going? It was clear that my apartment was merely space for them as some sort of transition from one place to another. At the end of my bed was another entity that looked like he was on guard. He sat there perfectly still and I thought that he didn’t notice that I could see him. He never even looked at me. It was a perfectly shaped human being but he was translucent and had a greenish color. He didn’t look like what I expected at all. He looked like someone you would see on a farm. He was larger and more perfectly formed than the shapes that were traveling near the ceiling. I wasn’t frightened by what I saw because it all seemed so natural. I was just given the opportunity to see something that we don’t normally see. I sat awake watching this unusual scene for about 30 minutes. I finally just got bored so I turned on the light. When I turned off the light again, the images had all disappeared and I never saw those images again.

For a long time, I thought this sight was unusual until I read Life on the Other Side. In the book, Sylvia Browne said, “What I could handle without panic was seeing spirits, which has been a constant part of my reality for sixty-three years now. They started with night visits in my early childhood. I’ll never forget lying in my bed in the dark, watching forms take shape, one after another, until they almost filled the room…they never threatened me or even paid much attention to me, they just mingled and went about their business until a light came on, at which time they promptly became invisible to my clairvoyant night vision.” I was only able to see on one night what she has always been able to see.

Anthropomorphism

Even if the images are real, it doesn’t mean that there is a God. It may just mean that “reality” encompasses another dimension that we cannot normally see. Does that dimension include God? I suppose it depends how you define God. Is he a ruler like a King? Or is he just a part of ourselves? Does it matter if there is a God or does it only matter that there is a dimension that encompasses our immortality? I suppose people believe in a God because we don’t believe in anarchy. If there is another world separate from this one, we would like to believe that it has some structure. At the top of the sphere of multiple dimensions, there should be a ruler or king. Yet, there doesn’t have to be an authority figure in this structure. The more important issue is whether this reality is the only reality. Would we really be upset if we died and found out that our consciousness continued but that it was part of a consciousness without a king?

We naturally impose our own physical structure into the nonphysical world. Our country is ruled by a leader. Our family unit is led by a ruling authority that may be a mother or father. It is difficult to picture pure energy without “someone” making the rules. A God as a ruler is an easier concept to accept because ancient religious texts refer to the voice of God. This voice could be similar to the faint inner voice we hear in our heads but when you attach an authoritative figure to the voice, it has more credibility. We may need to believe that there is a superior being who has all the right answers and we may need to have faith that there is an absolute right or wrong in the universe. Therefore, the concept of God resolves all the conflicts that naturally arise among equals.

An anthropomorphic God also makes sense for humanity. What else would we picture in our minds? Bill Moyers said, “You cannot imagine what you cannot personify.” In A Brief History of Western Philosophy, Anthony Kenny explains the principles of Xenophanes (an ancient Greek philosopher). Kenny states, “The clear truth about the gods no man has ever seen nor any man will ever know. But [Xenophanes] did claim to know where these legends of the gods came from: human beings have a tendency to picture everybody and everything like themselves.” Xenophanes said, “If oxen, horses, or lions had hands with which to sketch and fashion works of arts as men do, then horses would draw the forms of gods like horses, oxen like oxen, and they would each make their gods’ bodies similar in frame to the bodies that they themselves possess. Ethiopians make their gods dark and snub-nosed, while Thracians make them red-haired and blue-eyed.” According to Kenny, the belief that gods have any kind of human form at all is childish anthropomorphism. In the Bible, it states that man was created in God’s image. Instead, we may have created a concept of God in man’s image.

Many people use the image of a wise, old man as an anthropomorphized vision of God. This image is best conceptualized in the Sistine Chapel. It is also interesting that many of the older pictures and statues of Santa Claus have the same image. In fact, I have a hand-carved statue of Santa Claus that looks very similar to the image of God in the Sistine Chapel. Indirectly, we have related the image of a merry person who brings us presents with the image of God. It is also interesting that the myth of Santa is one of an all-knowing entity that judges you -- if you are bad you will get a lump of coal and if you are good you are rewarded with presents. Have we related the concept of a judgmental god that punishes and rewards with our image of Santa Claus?

Even though we have the natural tendency to personalize God, we must always remember that God is transcendent and He does not possess gender or human characteristics. In The History of God, Karen Armstrong states, “A personal God can become a grave liability. He can be a mere idol carved in our own image, a projection of our limited needs, fears and desires. We can assume that he loves what we love and hates what we hate, endorsing our prejudices instead of compelling us to transcend them. When he seems to fail to prevent a catastrophe or seems even to desire a tragedy, he can seem callous and cruel…The very fact that God is a gender is also limiting: it means that the sexuality of half the human race is sacralized at the expense of the female and can lead to a neurotic and inadequate imbalance in human sexual mores…Instead of pulling us beyond our limitations, ‘he’ can encourage us to remain complacently within them; ‘he’ can make us cruel, callous, self-satisfied and partial as ‘he’ seems to be. Instead of inspiring the compassion that should characterize all advanced religion, ‘he’ can encourage us to judge, condemn and marginalize.”

The Angry, Vengeful God

During my religious education, I never understood the Old Testament’s image of an angry, vengeful or punishing God. If God is loving, compassionate and merciful, how can He also be angry and vengeful? I think the problem results from the fact that we view God as a male figure. A mother’s love is unconditional and forgiving while a father’s love usually has to be “earned.” We translate the characteristics of the father onto our image of God. We feel that we must be “good” or deserving of love as a condition of acceptance. These fatherly images also explain fear and guilt. If our performance is less than satisfactory, then we fear punishment and feel guilty that we have disappointed the fatherly image. If we could picture God as a woman, would “His” love feel more unconditional?

Furthermore, how do we love God if we fear him? Love and fear are opposite emotions. Fear closes the heart while love opens the heart. If we are afraid of God, we can never get close enough to Him to love Him. If we picture God as a vengeful parent, we also may have the tendency to correlate events that are not correlated. For instance, there is archeological evidence that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was caused by a massive earthquake. Yet, biblically, the destruction is correlated to evil and promiscuous sexuality (which some say was homosexuality). During the plagues in Venice in the 16^th century, the citizens believed that the illness was a punishment from God, which led to the witch trials of the Inquisition. By assuming that God is punishing, we may unnecessarily correlate natural disasters and widespread illnesses to the nature of humankind, while they may not be related at all. Even when the AIDS epidemic appeared, many believed it was punishment for homosexuality or drug use. Every time there is an earthquake, it does not mean that the citizens who live there have done something wrong.

Representations of God

The evolution of God to Jesus makes perfect sense. For the people who cannot picture spiritual energy in their mind, the image of Jesus Christ is an easier concept to accept. Jesus was an actual human being, which makes the image of God more realistic and personal (vs. transcendent). Jesus was also the representation of love, rather than anger or vengeance. Jesus did not punish. Some people may find it easier to love Jesus than the punishing, parental God that is represented in parts of the Bible.

Though I don’t understand why some believe that they can’t speak to God directly. Why are intermediaries necessary? Isn’t God accessible to everyone? In ancient times, people worshipped the sun or moon because they thought a physical intermediary was necessary to speak to God. Later, the image of the transcendent God was represented in idols or mythological gods. If someone could not picture God, they would look at a statue. If an intermediary is necessary, Jesus is clearly superior to the ancient alternatives. The sun, moon or idols do not offer an expression of divinity. Yet, Jesus was a living example of virtue, kindness, love, and compassion (similar to the Dalai Lama today). By following the teachings of Jesus, it may be easier to evolve spiritually. He is a role model that helps us move closer to God.

I like to think that the essence of God is present in every person on the planet. We were created in his image, and I believe that He exists in all of humanity. Therefore, every person, whether good or evil, is a representation of God. Some may choose evil and some may choose good, but it is this free will that reflects God the most. The presence of evil only means that our free will gives us the right to say “no” to the concept of perfection.

I also see God in all the beautiful temples and churches because they were constructed as a monument to God and in my opinion the most precious image of God is reflected in nature. Nature is perfect and beautiful, created by God or some force in the universe. In nature, we are reminded of the purest form of God on this planet. I also don’t think it matters if someone believes in one God or multiple Gods. The idea of multiple Gods allows human beings to divide the image of perfection into its separate elements.

Regardless of the perception of God, I understand why religious leaders were upset by idolatry because idols have a materialistic physical form. Giving power to a physical statue is the same as giving power to possessions. It may not be the “right” vehicle for assigning power. Idol worship takes many forms, even today. When someone worships an actor, sports star, politician or hero, it is idol worship. When we become infatuated with someone by placing that person on a pedestal, it is idol worship. If we are seduced by power or money, it is also idol worship. Idol worship is dangerous because it attributes godlike characteristics to people or things that are not the true representation of the totality of God. In A Course in Miracles, they state, “A state of awe is worshipful and we should experience awe only in the presence of the Creator of perfection. Equals should not be in awe of one another because awe implies inequality. It is therefore an inappropriate reaction.” We may see “the face of God” when we find love, but we need to remember that it is the love or the divine spirit in others that represents God. We should never confuse the totality of God with His manifestations.

Personally, I think the Buddhist concept of Nirvana is beautiful. They do not call Nirvana God but by finding Nirvana, we can connect to the perfection of universal energy (free from desire and fear), which to me is not very different from my own concept of God. I also like the philosophy that Nirvana can be reached by anyone who is committed to achieving the goal. Buddhists do not believe that only certain people are selected or ordained and reaching Nirvana does not require an intermediary (though teachers help others learn how to find Nirvana on their own). Once you find Nirvana your life becomes harmonious and centered and you can rise above suffering. There are many similarities between Nirvana and God. Yet, God can be anthropomorphized, while Nirvana cannot.

I also like Joseph Campbell’s mythological description that “God is an intelligible sphere – a sphere known to the mind, not to the senses -- whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere. And the center is right where you are sitting. And the other center is right where I’m sitting. And each of us is a manifestation of that mystery.”

The Transcendent God

Kenneth Hansen has stated that, “According to Spinoza, the whole universe, the individual things it contains, and the powers they exert, are not just the offspring of God; they are ‘of God.’ The particulars in the universe represent a variety of patterns by which God is revealed… Everything is in God; everything moves in God… Consequently, things could not be other than they are, since they are manifestations – emanations – of God’s own character.” Similarly, Nishida Kitaro (a professor at the University of Kyoto) wrote, “The universe is not a thing created by God but a manifestation of God… the more we study natural phenomena the more we are able to know that one unifying power behind them is in control… In both philosophy and science there is no one who does not recognize this unity. And this unity is precisely God.” Kitaro believes in the “universal unity of consciousness which combines the consciousness of all men.” He further stated, “God is the unifier of the universe… all the ideas of universal unity which control our spirit are the self-same consciousness of God… the love of God too is not an illiberal love such as one wherein God loves a certain person and hates another person, wherein He causes a certain person to prosper and another to die. With God as the foundation of all reality, His love must be equal and universal… Just as we love our hands and feet so too does God love all things… the spirit of God is infinitely connected with our spirit. In this foundation of the unity of consciousness we are able directly to touch the visage of God… heaven is everywhere… when we break the small consciousness of self we become aware of one great spirit.” If this description is true, we may ask, “If God is everything and everywhere; if God is not a separate entity or reality, then how do we love God?” The answer is to love every expression of God, which means that we would love the divine spirit that is inseparable from the universe, nature, animals, other people and ourselves. We would love the unifying essence that exists throughout all creation.

An analogy of this concept of God is like picturing God as a lake. Assume that this lake is all there is in the universe. In this lake there are plants, fish and other living organisms. All of them depend on the lake for their existence and are intricately connected to the water. All the living organisms are in constant touch with the water of the lake – it is a part of them. One cannot separate the water from the creatures that coexist with it; without the water, these creatures would not even exist. Together, they create a perfect ecosystem. The water and the living organisms are a unified entity. The water is their life and a continual part of their existence. The water does not rule over the living creatures but may provide currents that help the flow. The creatures of the water probably don’t think about the water as a separate entity because it is their only environment. The lake is everywhere and it is not a separate entity from the living creatures that are a part of the water. In the same way, God can be everywhere and all living creatures can be united with this force. Correspondingly, the Essenes believed “they were but a drop in life’s vast ocean, unique and individually separated from the whole, yet intrinsically one with it, sharing the same substance, matter, and essence.”

A similar metaphor is to view God as the sun, where humanity represents the sun’s rays. The rays appear separate but they are all generated from and connected to the originating source. Through the source of the sun, all the rays are connected and without the sun, the rays could not exist. The sun’s rays directly represent the originating characteristics of the sun. If two rays of the sun become physically close, they automatically combine into one and when we look at the sun and its rays, we see a unified entity.

In both of these analogies, there is no separation from God. We are intimately connected during every moment of our existence. We only feel separate because we are fooled. If we were only exposed to cloudy days (and had no scientific knowledge), we might also believe that the sun did not exist.

Some people simply define God as consciousness. Although we may not be able to see God as a separate entity that is limited by time and space, we see infinite manifestations of that consciousness in nature, animals, others and ourselves. In the same way, we do not see electricity as a discrete entity but we see the manifestation of electricity through light and power. Electricity is the underlying and unifying energy that provides us with physical power in the same way that God is the underlying and unifying energy that provides us with the power of love. Electricity is a good metaphor because it is a power that is not personified. If someone is electrocuted, it is not because the electricity was punishing the person and if electricity provides warmth, it is not because the electricity is rewarding a specific individual who has performed good deeds.

The Grace of God

According to Webster’s, the theological definition of grace is 1) the unmerited love and favor of God toward mankind, and 2) a special virtue, gift, or help given to a person by God. I always find it interesting that when people notice acts of grace their first question is “how could God have time to help me with my small, insignificant problem?” This question is based on a view of God as a fixed quantity of energy limited by time and space. We say that God is infinite but we do not seem to understand the definition of infinity. If God is similar to the lake or sun analogies, then God is intimately involved with us during every moment of our existence. Simultaneously, God is with all of us (and a part of us) continuously. There is no limitation on time or narrowness of focus; God is not anywhere, but He is everywhere at all times. In other words, if we walk down a path looking for God, we will find that He is not at the end of the path; instead, he is the path and is a part of us at the same time. Acts of grace are miracles that happen all the time – they are infinitely available to every person who exists everywhere. Grace is omnipresent and ubiquitous, even if we fail to recognize the endless perpetuity of its existence.

Agnosticism

I have never understood agnostics. They do not deny the existence of God but refuse to believe in Him unless there is proof. Why do people need proof? The most beautiful elements in life require faith in something that we cannot see, feel, hear or touch. These people believe in love but love has no concrete proof. Is it better to have faith in something that might not be true or should we avoid believing in anything without proof – only because we are afraid that we might be wrong? Scott Peck summarizes this conundrum, “It is if they were to say, ‘What we cannot measure, we cannot know; there is no point in worrying about what we cannot know; therefore, what cannot be measured is unimportant and unworthy of our observation.’”

The same people who question God believe in wind because they can personally feel the wind against their face. Yet wind does not really exist. It is only air that is moving quickly. It is still air. Wind is completely subjective since air is always moving. At what point is it defined as wind? Maybe God is the same. It is possible that we can see God in one seemingly unrelated form and the definition of God requires a subjective determination that is a transformation of this form. Perhaps God is just a transformation of love. In any case, God is not a physical concept so why do we need him to be expressed physically before we can believe in Him?

Has anyone proved that God does NOT exist? We could deduce that if we can’t prove that he doesn’t exist then maybe he exists. However, it is difficult or impossible to prove non-existence. How do you prove that something does not exist? We can only deduce non-existence by showing the existence of everything else. When people see evil, they assume it means that God could not exist because the image of God is good. However, aren’t good and evil the choices of humankind rather than a representation of God or Satan? Good and evil are simply expressions of duality. Doesn’t God transcend the duality that exists in this dimension? If God is everything, then He cannot only represent “good.” In an effort to understand God, we should not create a “good god” and an “evil god.” Since we cannot prove that God does not exist, then there is always the possibility that He does. He just may not be as anthropomorphic or familiar as we would like Him to be.

Defining God

God is just a word and the word gets in the way of the concept. Joseph Campbell says, “God is an ambiguous word in our language because it appears to refer to something that is known -- but the transcendent in unknowable and unknown. God is transcendent…God is beyond names and forms… We want to think about God. God is a thought. God is a name. God is an idea. But its reference is to something that transcends all thinking. The ultimate mystery of being is beyond all categories of thought. As Kant said… The best things can’t be told because they transcend thought.”

Irrespective of our idea of God, we should all be open to the idea that we probably don’t know what we will find when we die. If our beliefs about God and the afterlife are rigid, we may be unprepared for what we find when we leave this existence or we may create an alternative reality that conforms to our belief systems. Consciousness is extremely powerful. If we believe that death results in nothingness, we may be able to create a state of nothingness even if one doesn’t really exist. Many people believe that thoughts create reality in the next dimension, which means that there could be a reality that we are unable to perceive because we are attached to a rigid belief system that does not include an afterlife. If we believe that God is a king and we fail to find a king at death, we could become extremely disappointed or confused. If we think we lived our lives righteously and have a ticket to heaven, we may be distraught if we find that there is no yellow brick road that leads us to the palace where God is sitting on a throne waiting for us with open arms. Without an open mind, we may not be able to accept the objective truth of the universe. In the Western world, we do not spend enough time preparing people for a transition from life to death. Does it really matter if the God we find in the next dimension is different from the principles that we were taught through our religious education?

Perhaps the concept of God is too difficult to describe with the English language (or any other language). People have a difficult time putting the concept of love in words and the same may be true with God. If God is energy, an emotion or a connection, how could words ever do it justice?

Enlightenment

One night when I closed my eyes, I had a profound spiritual experience where I connected to an energy force that was indescribable. For four hours, I was bathed in a warm light that was filled with pure unconditional love. I knew my consciousness was altered and I no longer felt human anymore. The concept of self or ego merged into a feeling of unity or oneness with an extremely powerful spiritual energy and the recognition of a separate self seemed to disappear entirely. I knew that I wasn’t perfect but somehow I connected to perfection. It felt like enlightenment because it was similar to being in a dark room and turning on the light. It appeared that I had awakened from an illusionary dream of reality and suddenly I was experiencing another form of reality (which felt “more real” or closer to the truth). When I became one with this energy force, I reached a state of “knowing.” All the questions of the universe became clear, but information was coming at me too fast for effective comprehension. I knew I had found a universal paradise that did not exist on this planet and I couldn’t immediately make the transition back to my humanity. I knew I was connecting to the “oneness” of the universe but not on the abstract level of meditation or a dream, but in full waking consciousness. When I decided to make the transition to sleep, to my surprise, I consciously entered the hypnagogic state (and I felt my spirit trying to fly out like an out-of-body experience but a force kept pulling it back) and then consciously entered the dream state. In shock, I began to feel the paralysis of REM sleep, which was an extremely strong magnetic energy force that was tying my body to the bed – first my legs and then my arms. I became so frightened by the mysterious force of the paralysis (it felt like my body was going into “lock down”) that I immediately jumped out of bed before the paralysis became complete. I realized that I had dual consciousness: my “self” or ego was entering the sleep state while the consciousness that was connected to the oneness of the universe was still my predominant conception of reality. In other words, through the consciousness of unity, I was simultaneously feeling my separated “self” enter the sleep state of my humanity. How could I stay in the sleep state and in full waking consciousness at the same time? It was similar to being human and non-human at the same time.

I was affected by this state of “enlightenment” for four days. The following day was the most dramatic because I actually discovered a state of perpetual ecstasy. There was an inner peace in me that I had never known before. I could not stop smiling. I didn’t know that I was capable of experiencing that kind of happiness and it wasn’t based on anything external. I had only positive thoughts and I instinctually knew things that I didn’t know before. I could feel people’s thoughts and energy. If there was negativity, I had to remove myself from the environment to recover. I could not process any negative thoughts such as anger, hatred, bitterness, cruelty or impatience. I finally understood unconditional love and many times I felt like I was “overdosing” from happiness. My experience with humanity had no words for the ecstasy that I was experiencing. I knew I couldn’t “live” in this state of existence because it was too overwhelming. My state of mind remained at a peak of extreme happiness and it was more intense than any type of inner peace that I had experienced before. It was pure ecstasy and bliss. People continually approached me to comment on my state of happiness. Strangers were naturally drawn to me. I think I was radiating something that is similar to the look that people have when they fall in love. Yet, this time there was no other human being involved with my happiness. I just felt grateful for everything and realized how much there is to be grateful for. Everything seemed perfect to me. Just feeling the sun on my face felt like a gift from God.

I think I connected with my concept of God that night. I obviously don’t know for sure but that was the only explanation that I could come up with. If I am right, then God is not a king or ruler and He does not need to be separate from the energy of our souls. The strange part of the experience was my dual consciousness. I was a part of my body but I was also hovering outside of my body at the same time. I had a separate ego but I was one with the universe. All our concepts about space, time, or opposites disappeared and were replaced with feelings of acceptance, love, and gratitude. I was given a gift that night and if it was truly a glimpse into another dimension, then it is a dimension that is impossible to describe in words.

Many books and authors have described similar states of consciousness. Deepak Chopra defines this state as spiritual ecstasy. In The Path to Love, he says, “Spiritual ecstasy is not a feeling or an idea but a shift of perception in which direct contact with spirit is made…While you are caught in the ecstatic moment, all of reality seems like a miracle…after returning to the everyday world, the great gift seems to be not the intensity of remembered joy but the revelation of truth. One moment of genuine ecstasy removes a lifetime of doubts – you realize once and for all that spirit is real. You know from firsthand experience that you are the divine essence.” Gershom Scholem (Kabbalah expert) describes these experiences as a “mystical union with God…the essence of the ecstatic experience is the tremendous uprush and souring of the soul to its highest plane.” He further states, “He who is granted this supreme experience loses the reality of his intellect, but when he returns from such contemplation to the intellect, he finds it full of divine and inflowing splendor.”

Rabindranath Tagore (Hindu poet who received Nobel Prize for literature) also described a similar experience. He states, “The final freedom of spirit which India aspires after… is beyond all limits of personality, divested of all moral or aesthetic distinctions; it is the pure consciousness of Being, the ultimate reality, which has an infinite illumination of bliss…consciousness does reach that infinity where knowledge ceases to be knowledge, subject and object become one – a state of existence that cannot be defined…self-realization reaches its perfection in the abnegation of self. This fact has made us aware that the individual finds his meaning in a fundamental reality comprehending all individuals… liberation of our individual personality in the universal Person… For goodness represents the detachment of our spirit from the exclusiveness of our egoism; in goodness we identify ourselves with the universal humanity. Its value is not merely in some benefit for our fellow beings, but in truth itself through which we realize within us that man is not merely an animal, bound by his individual passions and appetites, but a spirit that has its unfettered perfection. Goodness is the freedom of our self in the world of man, as is love. We have to be true within, not for worldly duties, but for spiritual fulfillment, which is in harmony with the Perfect, in union with the Eternal.”

Melinda Ribner (author of New Age Judaism, Ancient Wisdom for the Modern World) explains why the experience couldn’t last. She says, “To experience oneness with another person is a great joy. To experience oneness with God is ecstasy. As physical and human beings, it is not our fate to remain in the spiritual world of unity…The experience of oneness…lasts a brief time, yet we are changed irrevocably through it. We move close, we merge and then we separate…Kabbalah calls it ‘running and returning.’ We ascend to the spiritual world, then we return to the physical world. This is our destiny as human beings.”

Some people may argue that my experience was simply a state of meditation without any spiritual connection. Obviously, this is a possible explanation, but how can I explain what happened the next day? After the “enlightenment” I was not meditating but I was in a state of pure ecstasy and bliss. Meditation experiences can create unusual physical sensations but they wear off immediately after the meditation stops. In my case, the effects of that experience lasted for days. A year later I had the experience again and that time the euphoria and bliss lasted for 15 days straight.

Looking Within

It seems that the route to God is internal; If we want to find God, we should look within. Ironically, we have a tendency to look upward when we speak to God, but where are we looking? Do we believe that heaven is a physical place that exists “up there?” Joseph Campbell accurately describes the metaphor of heaven. He says, “Jesus ascended to heaven. The denotation would seem to be that somebody ascended to the sky. That’s literally what is being said. But if that were really the meaning of the message, then we have to throw it away, because there would have been no such place for Jesus literally to go. We know that Jesus could not have ascended to heaven because there is no physical heaven anywhere in the universe. Even ascending at the speed of light, Jesus would still be in the galaxy. Astronomy and physics have simply eliminated that as a literal, physical possibility. But if you read Jesus ascended to heaven in terms of its metaphoric connotation, you see that he has gone inward – not into outer space but into inward space to the place from which all being comes, into the consciousness that is the source of all things, the kingdom of heaven within. The images are outward, but their reflection is inward. The point is that we should ascend with him by going inward. It is the metaphor of returning to the source.”

I don’t believe that anyone can definitively answer the question of whether God exists or not. Any opinion is right or wrong and I surely am not wise enough to know the answer. I simply believe that we should give every human being the freedom of answering this question without judgment. We should also not impose our own concept of God onto others. While we are alive, we may never know whether there is a God in this universe or the appropriate form of this potential energy force. The beauty of the concept is that a person has faith in something without needing concrete evidence to support its existence. Faith is sacrosanct and should not be condemned simply because there are alternative viewpoints.

Our religious organizations are limited by language and interpretation. Our concept of God may have the same limitations. Instead of believing that there is one right answer for who we think that God is or whether He exists or not, shouldn’t we just be open to the idea that anything is possible? God may not be a ruler or a king. He may not be separate from ourselves. The concept of God may manifest itself in good or evil, man or woman, friend or foe. God can be everywhere with everyone at the same time. He may be internal and external, timeless and infinite. He may represent love, compassion, mercy, and hope or pain, suffering, misery and death. He may be present in the homeless man, rich industrialist, writer, poet, garbage collector or philanthropist. Or maybe He is just the unifying consciousness that underlies all creation. While we are alive the proof of God may never exist, so in the meantime, maybe all we can do is trust our hearts, listen to our inner voices, and have some faith.