Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Obama Disaster

I saw a Dailykos article by Badabing in which TheAtomicA commented that Obama was super-ambitious and wanted to be remembered as a great president, and bruh1 commented that America is already off the cliff and that Obama’s policies aren’t reflecting that fact, so defending him doesn’t make sense given the emergency. These are two thoughts I’ve been having. Here are the quotes:

TheAtomicA: “His ambition was clearly to be remembered in history as one of the great Presidents. I don't know if we've ever had a more ambitious President in regards to that -certainly not in my lifetime.”
bruh1: “I am trying to get beyond the he said, she said or partisan/ideological divides to bring into play a real historic understanding of the politicians we are seeing in the Democratic Party, and their inadequate response to the task in front of them. i recently realized if this were 1990 Obama would be fine. But, its 2010, and we are over the cliff, so he's not.”

Obama wants to be popular like Reagan and Clinton, so he has a mix of their policies, but America is in a mess because of Reagan and Clinton (plus Bush II) and while America could cope with Reagan and Clinton’s policies to some extent in the 80s and 90s, America is broken now, and those policies are now very dangerous.

Neoliberalism, war, and high defence budgets are crazy, but especially so in this environment. Add Bush II’s “security” policies of torture, domestic spying, detention without trial, execution of American citizens abroad, etc., and Obama is a complete disaster. He had the greatest opportunity imaginable when he entered office, but he was stuck in his old dream of being a popular president like Reagan and Clinton, and so he missed the boat. His enneagram type is 3, so he figured if he does what all the popular people do, then he can’t go wrong. Oops.

Monday, August 9, 2010

Guru enneagram types

I recommend the enneagram for anyone interested in personal growth, spirituality, egos, psychology, criminology, defence mechanisms, or just understanding the motivation behind a particular negative behaviour. The system describes 9 ego fixations. It must be emphasised that this is just about the ego, not the real essential person. The ego is just a valid defence mechanism for when we feel threatened.

It’s a very deep and complex system, but here are the basic descriptions:

Type 1: Perfectionist. Fixated on improving things in a moral sense. Under pressure, ones are judgemental and always pushing for improvement in themselves and others. Example: Margaret Thatcher - vibe of righteousness.

Type 2: Pleaser. Fixated on sustaining relationship by pleasing others in the hope that their own needs will be met by those others. Under pressure, twos are intrusive and manipulative and can suddenly fly into rages when their needs aren’t met. Example: the Jewish mother stereotype - vibe of fussing and interfering.

Type 3: Status-seeker. Fixated on how others perceive them, so they do things that others seem to approve of and try to appear to be the kind of person others like. Under pressure, threes are liars and shallow. Example: Tom Cruise - vibe of smooth professionalism.

Type 4: Romantic. Fixated on high romance either in love or the arts. Under pressure, fours are elitist and self-absorbed. Example: Gwenyth Paltrow - vibe of longing for the far away.

Type 5: Observer. Fixated on avoiding emotions and entanglements. Under pressure, fives are distant and emotionally stingy. Example: Mr Burns from the Simpsons - vibe of loving money over people.

Type 6: Defender. Fixated on dangers. Under pressure, sixes either group together in an us vs them stance or find an individual to pick on. Example: Mel Gibson - vibe of defence and attack.

Type 7: Escapist. Fixated on avoiding pain and restriction. Under pressure, sevens are superficial and flighty. Example: Richard Branson - vibe of flightiness and busyness.

Type 8: Boss. Fixated on controlling their lives for their own benefit. Under pressure, eights are pushy and domineering. Example: Hernando Cortez - vibe of power and control.

Type 9: Peace-seeker. Fixated on avoiding internal and external conflict. Under pressure, nines are lazy and passive. Example: Ringo Starr - vibe of passivity and “don’t rock the boat”.

Note that you can also have a wing, which is an influence coming from either side of your number. So, for example, a 2 might have a 1 wing, and therefore be a martyr subtype, or a 2 might have 3 wing, and therefore be a host subtype.

It’s good to know your guru’s ego type so that you can separate the good aspects of their teaching out from their neurotic aspects. Remember that this is just about their ego defence, not about who they really are. So following are my guesses at the enneagram types of some gurus:

Adi Da: This case is tricky. I’m guessing 8 because he is a larger than life kind of guy. But he has characteristics of 2 (wanting devotion from others), 7 (loves to be the centre of attention and to be superior), and 3 (likes prestige).

Ammaji: 2. Loves to have others devoted to her.

Andrew Cohen: 1. Judgemental, controlling, obsessive, moralising. He has a 2 wing - clingy, intrusive, and suffocating.

Anthony Robbins: 3. Superficial and success oriented.

Barry Long: 1. “Get your life right.” I think he had a 9 wing because he was a bit distant and didn’t like disturbance.

Buddha: 5. All about renunciation.

Byron Katie: 2. When she’s practicing her technique on people, she’s all schmaltzy and affirming of others like a smothering 2 - “Yes, darling.”

Deepak Chopra: 3 or 7. A phoney recycler/rationaliser/magical thinker.

Gangaji: 4. So says her hubby.

Isaac Shapiro: 9. Slothful. I think he has an 8 wing - activated more by instincts than ideals.

J Krishnamurti: 6. Ranted about not following authority. Some people think he’s an incarnation of, or channelled, the Lord Maitreya - as if the LORD MAITREYA would be so obsessed with not following authority!

Jesus: 2. Emphasised love. Flew into a rage with the moneychangers. Maybe a 1 wing - principled and a martyr. Of course, it’s hard to pick historical figures because we don’t know them well.

John de Ruiter: 9. Long-haired, zoned out, slothful.

Ken Wilber: 5. He’s a mindy theoriser.

Mother Theresa: 2. Caring for others, enjoying having others dependent on her.

Nisagadatta Maharaj: 8. Lion-like bigness. Play by my rules or get out!

Osho Rajneesh: 7. He was an eternal child and master of rationalisation and always wanted to be smarter than others. He called himself the master of masters. He’s also a big synthesizer of various theories.

Papaji: 8. Lion-like bigness.

Ram Dass: 7. Oral fixation, magical thinker, synthesizer.

Ramana Maharshi: 5. Living in a cave is classic 5 behaviour. Rarely strayed off topic.

Ramesh Balsekar: 7. Master of rationalsation. Many Neo-advaita gurus are 7s. That genre of so-called enlightenment is great for 7s because they can be instantly enlightened without any effort and then they can rationalise any signs of unenlightenment away by claiming that they aren’t the doer - Andrew Cohen called this “The Advaita Shuffle”.

Sailor Bob Adamson: Maybe 6. He once said to me that when he was younger he thought everyone was against him.

Stephen R. Covey: 1. All about the so-called traditional “character” ethic.

Wayne Liquorman: 8. He seems to live by the code “My way or the highway.”

Keep an eye out for changes and additions in the comments section. Please feel free to disagree with these or add others. I’m particularly keen to figure out Adi Da’s type, and to be more certain about Jesus’ type. Can you help with that?

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Beware: security departments and companies gradually merge into a mindless machine

Disturbingly, Obama is following Bush in increasing America’s security apparatus. In the process he is gradually wearing down privacy laws and merging the public and private sector.

As government security departments and private security companies grow and merge, that merged entity gradually becomes a machine with its own logic. This is especially problematic when it's all secret and outside of Congressional or Judicial review.

If you accidentally fall into one of that machine's "bad guy" categories, then the machine automatically sees itself as correct and disappears you to Guantanamo or wherever.

Even money won't protect you. Fame is about the only way you can be safe. That's because the world notices when famous people go missing. At least Paris Hilton will be safe.

IMO, the important thing to ask is why have such a vast security machine? It is obviously the case that either the government is overestimating the threat (even a nuke attack is unimportant in the big scheme of things) or it's a deliberate power/money grab. In other words, it is either stupid or corrupt.

And wouldn't it be better for the government to work on making America more ethical and an attractive role model than to bomb nations, torture people, and spy on its own citizens?

Happiness is more important than "security" and money.

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Guru Andrew Cohen is at it again

I see Andrew Cohen is pumping out the marketing again. In his latest blog entry, he’s gushing about the multifaceted manifestations of love then finishes with:

“It is only highly evolved human beings who are capable of knowing what love is in all its multifaceted manifestations. And in the end, it is up to each and every one of us to heroically aspire to become a powerful expression of our own highest recognition of what love truly is.”


So, presumably, he’s highly evolved and heroic. And notice that after pressing people’s idealistic buttons, he throws out the ego bait of heroism - you can be highly evolved and heroic too! Trouble is, if you bite, then the slaps, cold lake dunkings, and humiliations begin.

He does this every time, and it’s getting really old. Why can’t he just say what he thinks and leave it at that? Instead, he always implies that he’s great and heroic, and tempts you to join his cause after he has glorified the key selling points. Once he has trapped you by your own idealism and egoic attachment to heroism, he’s got you in a catch 22.

Leaving him gets interpreted as denying your ideals, and you expose yourself to being labeled as a coward rather than a hero. Indeed, that’s his key self-defense method. Andrew and his supporters say his detractors are denying their own ideals and are cowards.

Beware!

Saturday, February 27, 2010

Andrew Cohen & Guru-Talk - Face Everything and Avoid Nothing

Two Andrew Cohen supporters from the Guru-Talk website replied via email to my previous article “Untangling the Guru-Disciple Relationship with Andrew Cohen”, which was an analysis of the articles on Guru-Talk. One person responded very well, but when I replied, they disappeared - I haven’t heard from them for 16 days. So below is my reply to that email (minus identifying material). This interaction moves the conversation forward very well, I think. Whether it goes any further or not depends on Andrew Cohen and/or his supporters. To help you understand this post, the first 5 points in my previous article are:

1. The writer begins by stating that they have done much spiritual seeking.

2. The writer goes on to explain how they came to attend an Andrew Cohen meeting.

3. Next, the writer has a big spiritual experience during the meeting.

4. Then, the writer suddenly KNOWS that Andrew is basically perfect and is their destined guru.

5. Next, Andrew, says something like, “It’s your ability to respond that counts.”


Now, let's go to the email interaction:


Guru-Talk Person: “I didn't have anything that I would call a spiritual experience with Andrew for at least six years. As a result… [regarding] point 4… and speaking only for myself… I never came to the conclusion that Andrew was perfect during my… journey in his community. Therefore, I don't think point 5 applies…”

If you were not attracted by a spiritual experience, then I presume you were attracted by Andrew’s idealism, right? If your ideals and ideas about good vs bad perfectly matched Andrew’s, then that would explain your satisfaction with Andrew. Indeed, point three could be stated as “3. The writer sees that there is a perfect match between their ideals and Andrew’s ideals.” The implications are still the same because point three leads to the more crucial point four, which is about conclusions regarding Andrew. If someone is articulating ideals that you have long cherished, which no one else seems to be articulating, then you will naturally conclude that person is pretty cool. In other words, point four would be “4. The writer concludes that Andrew is ‘for real’,” which is a common Andrew Cohen expression. Point five applies because when Andrew says things like “It’s your ability to respond that counts,” he means responding to your conclusions. Since he seems to be the embodiment of your ideals, responding to your ideals means responding to him. For example, here’s his first tenet (Clarity of Intention):

“The first tenet is the foundation of the spiritual life. In order to succeed in liberating yourself from ignorance and self-deception, you have to have no doubt whatsoever that you want to be free more than anything.” Then he goes on to say: “But when you attempt to bridge the gap between that higher perspective and the reality of your life in the relative world, the ultimate challenge of spiritual freedom reveals itself. You recognize that to become a living expression of that higher perspective demands nothing less than everything.”

Here he is saying that the goal is to bridge the gap between your current life and your higher conclusions, and the implication is that he is “a living expression of that higher perspective”, and so you must give him absolute rule over you i.e. you must give “nothing less than everything”. Isn’t this logic the cause of your response to him?

It’s just that in your case, your conclusions about him were based on matching ideals, rather than on a spiritual experience, but the principle is the same - coming to conclusions without deep questioning. Regardless, did you read the other Guru Talk articles? Most of them do say they had a spiritual experience then suddenly knew Andrew was the one. Here’s a quote from the current Guru-Talk post (by Kate Fleming):

“…as Andrew said these words, I saw, and even more importantly, knew something even more deeply. It was that this Love was my True Self it was also THE True Self, and so in that deepest place, the most (and only) real place, I was the same as Ramana, and that also, in this, Andrew and I were no different…and even more than that, we were One – that his truest heart and mine were the same. This lasted the merest sliver of a second, but seemed forever. In the next moment I saw the vast implications of that truth on every level…the total surrender, care and big-hearted abandonment of my personal history that I also knew in that moment would have to be given.” And later: “In that moment, the moment of showing me my True Self, Andrew became my Teacher, my Guru.”

This is a romantic mess. I mean it’s okay to enjoy all that, but to believe in those concepts means you are bowing to your emotions. It’s addiction to intensity.

Guru-Talk Person: “It seems many people have a problem with the idea of a strong and independent individual voluntarily accepting another human being's "absolute rule."”

By definition, a strong and independent individual would not accept another person’s absolute rule. It’s a straightforward contradiction. Also, a strong and independent person wouldn’t need another person’s absolute rule over them.

Guru-Talk Person: “What about a very common situation for ambitious workers struggling to succeed in a big corporation . . . do they not accept the absolute rules of hierarchy, reward, punishment, success, failure, pride and humiliation, mentors (gurus?) and enemies. What about doctors, nurses, policemen, soldiers etc etc. And then there are those in the spiritual realm. Pretty much every monastic tradition has a rigid hierarchy, a demand to surrender to a temporal, corporeal, human, master, some more accomplished than others but all demanding obedience.”

Except for the soldiers and the monastic tradition examples, your examples are contained situations, i.e. they are resticted to work, or bodily health, etc. It’s not absolute rule over your whole life. It’s 9-5 rule, for example. Regarding solidiers, they aren’t being very smart (but don’t tell them I said that) because they are letting corrupt politicians tell them to kill and be killed. Regarding the monastic tradition, I’d say they aren’t being very smart either because I don’t think many people make progress in monasteries - most just hide out from life and reality. Regarding your statement about accepting “absolute rules of hierarchy, reward, punishment, success, failure, pride and humiliation, mentors (gurus?) and enemies”, I’d say that is a very low, instinctual, unintelligent, rudimentary forms of functioning unworthy of higher spiritual endeavour. And the rules, etc., are not accepted absolutely in the situations you mention. Everyone fudges, takes breaks, etc., otherwise it would be unbearable. Another point is that I don’t understand why Andrew’s enlightenment consisted of Papaji whispering sweet nothings into Andrew’s ear for 5 minutes, but your enlightenment required 10+ years of control, obedience, slappings, etc., which still didn’t work! It just looks obvious that Andrew’s ego reared up and took control of the life process after his ideals were shattered when Papaji said bad things about Andrew behind his back. (By the way, I saw Andrew say bad things about someone in Bodhgaya, then flat out deny it, exactly like Papaji. That’s human nature.)

Guru-Talk Person: “My point is that we in the so-called free West have the illusion that even in spiritual matters, voluntarily devoting one's efforts to another's direction is somehow not right.”

I say, if it works, and everything is stated clearly upfront, then it’s great. But “works” means taking many more steps forward than backward, and there should be no big opportunity cost. I look at the supporters and I see they have many beliefs about ego, spiritual experiences, Andrew, human evolution, etc. that are wrong. While they have made some good progress, there are too many backward steps. For example, the reason people say Cohenites are brainwashed is that Cohenites seem to think only according to Cohen’s paramaters. Then there’s the opportunity cost. For example, I think many of the women, deep down, would be angry that they never had babies.

Regarding the detractors’ submission to Andrew, I’d say they didn’t see the agreement with Andrew the same way you saw it. I got out early because I naturally question everything, but someone who questions less than me will take longer to figure out what’s going on, and, by then, they are deeper into it so it’s a lot messier when they leave. Andrew and his supporters like to claim that the contract was clear at the start. I accept that the contract was clear to them, but it wasn’t to others. It took me six months to figure out what happened, and I’m not stupid. Do you see how that’s possible? Can you imagine what it’s like for someone who doesn’t believe in slapping to spend 10-15 years of their life submitted to a person who claims to be super-evolved, only to see ugly scenes of slapping? If I had have known it would end up in slapping, etc., I would never have gone anywhere near him. I’m annoyed that I wasted one year - imagine wasting 10-15 years! Although I felt him to be controlling, it wasn’t clear to me at the time that it was heading in the direction of slapping, etc. Slapping is so bizarre, but it fits his punitive personality type.

Guru-Talk Person: “You apparently do not accept the possibility that actions that the so-called detractors label as faults and flaws were in fact positively beneficial to at least some of those involved.”

I accept the slappings, cold lake dunkings, and humiliation rituals had some benefit for some people, but it’s a case of one step forward, two steps back. All that creates karma. And there are better options. By the way, were you ever slapped? Did you ever slap others?

Guru-Talk Person: “You only allow the detractors view to be correct and those whose experience and/or conclusions are different are condemned to being characterized as ignorant and deluded believers in Andrew's alleged absolute perfection and crazy world view.”

Yes, I do think they are deluded. But that’s no big deal because 99.999% of people in the world are deluded. And no one is to blame for that because we are suffering from the after-affects of war, poverty, disease, being born vulnerable with no instruction manual, etc. But when people make huge claims like they are evolving God and that those who are criticising slappings, etc. are evil losers, then I’m naturally going to put it right back in their face, especially since they say they are heroes willing to face everything and avoid nothing. They are begging for a strong response and they are saying they are heroic and therefore are able to handle it. Life always punishes hubris. Furthermore, they didn’t investigate. They arrived at Andrew’s feet with idealistic beliefs and gained dreamy beliefs about him from spiritual experiences or from resonating ideals, and Andrew reinforced those beliefs rather than questioning them. The “What is Enlightenment?” enquiry started from the premise that Andrew’s and his disciples’ ideals were true. But to enquire properly, you have to throw everything up for questioning - especially your most cherished ideals and hopes. Leave no stone unturned. My experience with Andrew was that he dismissed attempts at real enquiry. The result is that he has built up a whole system based on unquestioned assumptions. So the moment those assumptions are questioned, he and his supporters attack the questioner, sneer, shake their heads and say “wow”, say they are “shocked”, say the questioner is “disgusting”, panic, run, turn a blind eye, etc. They are incredibly touchy on this issue.

Guru-Talk Person: “I think the issues involved are much more multi-faceted than you allow.”

Well, that article was focussed on only two points because those are the foundations of the problem. The two points are 1) the disciples (and Andrew) jumping to conclusions (whether based on spiritual experiences or based on ideals), and 2) Andrew’s belief that ego is evil despite the fact that Andrew obviously has a whopper of an ego himself. If we focus on those two foundational issues, then the rest would take care of itself. All thought systems sprout from assumptions, so if we sort them out, then everything else will become easy to sort out.

Guru-Talk Person: “More interesting to me is to accept that both detractors and supports have something important to say. I completely accept the detractors point of view when they speak of their own experience and the conclusions they have come to regarding their own lives. I hesitate when they insist it applies to me and I am not at all sure about the absolute nature of many of their conclusions.”

This is very clear. Please say more! If Andrew’s supporters are evolved heroes, then why not prove it by deploying persistant and brilliant responses - especially responses that are your own rather than Andrew’s. People will feel the sincerity. Don’t hide your candle under a bushel. Consider others’ insistance to be a challenge from life, and then respond. It’s your ability to respond that counts.

Guru-Talk Person: “I very much regret the polarized nature of the discussion to date…”

I am also disappointed at the stuckness of the situation. Clearly both sides have different experiences and different interpretations of those experiences. So what’s the way forward? It seems to me, that there needs to be communication. My experience is that Andrew’s supporters always run when questioned. This is just a fact. Even the Guru-Talk website people refuse to talk, so it should be called Guru-Monologue. Nevertheless, maybe we can say that from this moment forward, no one who wants to participate in this discussion is allowed to say:

1. Andrew is completely wrong.

2. The supporters are completely deluded.

3. The detractors are completely evil losers.

By the way, I fully agree with Andrew regarding the problem - lame new age spirituality, etc. And I agree with the goal - communal spirituality and evolution. That’s why I was interested in his community. I only disagree with his methods. I also think his supporters are amazingly strong people because they endured so much for so long. I also think their spiritual experiences are great and that they have developed parts of their intellects very well. I’ve said these things before. I think the methods are the only issue.

Guru-Talk Person: “PS: Do you really think that spiritual experience of itself will result in profound human transformation? Regret to say that thus far I have found little evidence to support that view!”

I think it’s a numbers game. I think the problem is that the world still operates in lower instincts - hierarchy, etc. - because we have nothing outside of that to suggest an alternative. The context is the problem. We are largely born blank slates, and the world largely writes on us. However, if more people have spiritual experiences, then the alternative context will become stronger in our minds. My view is that since Andrew seems to have a strong talent for facilitating spiritual experiences, he should have pushed that to the max. Going back to the old societal paradigm of good vs evil, which is a product of the lowest level of dichotomous thought, just keeps everyone stuck. Such divisions are the problem. They cycle around, creating karma. No one is good or evil. The only problem is that some actions cause suffering. Such actions arise because there is no obvious readily-available alternative. Spiritual experiences suggest the alternative. Do you see my point? Andrew complained because people had spiritual experiences then fell back. But that’s to be expected in the beginning, especially in a distracting ignorant environment where everyone else is lacking in spiritual experience.

Your email was good. You should post it on my website, and I can post this reply there, and the conversation can move forward.

Regards,

Martin Gifford.

Friday, February 5, 2010

Untangling the Guru-Disciple Relationship with Andrew Cohen

Andrew Cohen is an American guru who has a magazine called EnlightenNext (previously called What is Enlightenment?). He strongly advocates for the guru-disciple relationship, and he is hailed by Ken Wilber as a great example of a “rude guru”.

However, Andrew has many detractors who have written books and articles criticising him for slapping disciples, dunking disciples in cold lakes, putting disciples through humiliation rituals, etc. The detractors’ books are American Guru by William Yenner and Enlightenment Blues by Andre van der Braak, and the detractors’ articles are on this website: http://www.whatenlightenment.net.

In response to these books and articles, Cohen’s supporters have written many articles of their own to defend him, and these are located at Guru Talk, and in the Reviews section of Yenner’s book at Amazon. The writers of these articles admit to the slappings, etc., but they claim that the context justified Cohen’s actions.

What I find most interesting is that a revealing pattern has emerged in the guru-talk.com articles. These articles describe the writers’ own experiences with Cohen in an attempt to convey the profundity of the context so that the reader will accept that the slappings, etc., were justified. Here are the common steps in their stories followed by my comments:

1. The writer begins by stating that they have done much spiritual seeking.

This is fine.

2. The writer goes on to explain how they came to attend an Andrew Cohen meeting.

This is also fine.

3. Next, the writer has a big spiritual experience during the meeting.

This is great!

4. Then, the writer suddenly KNOWS that Andrew is basically perfect and is their destined guru.

This is a classic spiritual beginner’s mistake and it’s very dangerous. Thoughts we have during spiritual experiences do not translate into the world of relativity. For example, in the throes of a spiritual experience many people have thought that they are God, yet they haven’t created any universes since then, which proves the thought “I am God” needs a few provisos attached, at least. Jumping to conclusions is a common and natural mistake due to the overwhelming intensity of such experiences. The onus is on the facilitator of these experiences to point out to the seeker that while the spiritual experience is real, the thoughts they had during and after the experience are not true. Thoughts are small and so they can never describe reality. As Andrew himself says, people shouldn’t become addicted to intensity.

5. Next, Andrew, says something like, “It’s your ability to respond that counts.”

So, by implication, Andrew agrees with the writer’s conclusions about him and their spiritual experience. The problem is clear. Since they now believe Andrew is a perfect person, his self-image, worldview, and instructions must also be perfect, and so blind obedience to him becomes necessary. This obedience is reinforced whenever his speeches and instructions relate to their ideals and to the other thoughts they had during their spiritual experience.

6. Next, the writer submits to Andrew’s “absolute rule” (Rick Asherson’s phrase at guru-talk.com), hoping that discipleship will complete her or his enlightenment and/or begin a new leap in human consciousness, which is Andrew’s stated main goal.

Once you submit to someone’s “absolute rule” you are automatically in the position of an unenlightened person. You cannot act in an enlightened way from that position. So everything you do will fall short. Even if the guru tells you to be yourself or be a light unto yourself, you will still be obeying. All human progress comes from understanding, which is lacking in this particular situation. It seems to me that Andrew is taking advantage of their vulnerability (even if his intentions are good), rather than aiding their understanding by pointing out their mistaken assumptions, which is the essence of the guru’s job description.

7. Next, Andrew puts the writer through all kinds of ordeals - including slappings, cold lake dunkings, and humiliation rituals - in order to defeat their “evil” ego. In the article, both Andrew and the writer are presented as heroes and the stakes are presented as “unimaginably high” (Debbie Wilson’s phrase at guru-talk.com).

Firstly, having an ego is necessary unless you live in a cave or are surrounded by bodyguards. Secondly, creating these ordeals appears to be a manifestation of Andrew’s punitive perfectionist ego. It seems to me that Andrew wants to erase all traces of his disciples’ behaviour that don’t fit his personal egoic ideals. Of course, this causes a defensive response in the disciples, whereupon Andrew begins punishing. In other words, Andrew creates the whole drama in the belief that it is necessary for human evolution, but really it’s only to satisfy Andrew’s unexamined psychological needs. (For more information about Andrew Cohen’s perfectionist ego, see: http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/TypeOne.asp. Alternatively, you can listen to this audio clip, which is only 5 minutes long: http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/books/audio/audio.asp?audiofile=file1)

8. Next, the writer describes how he or she learnt a lot of things over the years and may have even experienced “intersubjective enlightenment”. (Intersubjective enlightenment is where groups of people experience oneness and love.)

This is great!

9. After 10-15 years, the writer quits their discipleship with Andrew because they think they aren’t cut out for final enlightenment or they aren’t ready for it yet.

This shows the person is trapped in seeing themselves in terms of Andrew Cohen’s worldview rather than seeing themselves in relationship to whole naked reality. After all, how far away from reality are you? No distance. The choice is between looking at reality or looking at illusion. Why would anyone knowingly choose to focus on illusion?

10. Next, the writer expresses gratitude to Andrew and unquestioningly reaffirms their faith in his perfection or near perfection.

This is good in that it shows humility and goodwill, but it is bad in that it shows a stubborn attachment to their beliefs about Andrew.

11. Next, the writer judges Andrew’s detractors as losers, liars, etc.

This is a redoubled effort of the writer to prop up his or her unnecessary and false beliefs about Andrew and his worldview. While it is true that the detractors left out details, they did so in order to focus on the faults in Andrew that he and his disciples stubbornly refuse to face.

12. Lastly, the writer affirms that he or she is still a seeker.

Here we see the writers are failing to acknowledge that Andrew’s methods didn’t work and that they have accepted much counterproductive baggage about gurus, disciples, spiritual experiences, goals, etc, in the process. In other words, along with taking forward steps, they took backward steps.

So do the numerous negatives I point out above mean that the guru-disciple relationship is always bad? No. Actually, I believe others are normally needed for us to progress, and that even having someone you formally call your guru can accelerate our progress. However, there is a problem when the disciple believes the guru is perfect and then becomes afraid to see the guru’s imperfection, and that problem is exacerbated when the guru stubbornly resists feedback regarding his or her imperfection since he or she has become an authority figure for the disciple.

What’s the solution in this particular case? All that needs to happen is for both Andrew and his supporters to fully acknowledge his ego, and therefore his shadow. It’s a simple, obvious, and necessary step for progress to be made. However, for some strange reason, Andrew and his supporters are attached to the belief that he is perfect or nearly perfect. It’s blind love. If instead Andrew acknowledged his faults, and his supporters acknowledged their errors, then the illusions that caused the negatives mentioned above would all dissolve, and so the negatives themselves would all dissolve because their foundations would be gone. At some point the guru needs to learn something about himself from the disciples. It can’t always be a one-way street.



Note: I have emailed the guru-talk.com people and Andrew Cohen inviting them to respond in the comments section. (They do not publish posts like this in the comments sections of their websites.) I hope they do respond here. I think it would help to move this issue, and human evolution, forward.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Heart Being

In late 2001, I had accidentally found myself in a job titled “Billings Clerk” at Sydney’s Royal Hospital for Women in Randwick. I don’t remember what I did. It was so boring that I had to ask the supervisor every day to remind me what to do. It was something like checking that bills for hospital accommodation were paid and posting letters. If bills were long overdue, I’d phone the debtor to see if they intended paying and then make notes on the computer. That’s it - I remember. I was a goddamned debt-collector! For six months. How did that happen?! It got to the point where I actually had to spank my bum and cajole myself to make my body walk to work. By contrast, a Chinese lady colleague, Marla, told me that she had money and didn’t need to work! “I do it for fun. And to give money to charities. Drives my husband crazy!” I wondered if she was crazy.

Although I didn’t know where else I belonged, I sure as hell didn’t belong at the Royal Hospital for Women. Due to a twenty-year commitment to the spiritual search (and concurrent commitment to being a rock star and saving the world), I had built up loads of dispiriting job experience, and it had taught me that such jobs never go anywhere good. So in January 2002 I decided to quit, and head for Byron Bay. I vowed not to go on the dole either, so it was up to Byron Bay to get it’s transformative act together and sort things out for me.

On my last day of work - forever, this time - Marla gave me an envelope with a card in it and made me promise not to open it till I got on the bus in two day’s time. I intended to type up the notes for one of three books I was writing. I figured I had enough money for two months. I figured I could type and tidy one book in that time and send it to a publisher. After that, I had no idea what I’d do. But stickers on rusted out Byron Bay Kombis assure us that “Magic Happens”, and this time I hoped they were right.

I had nowhere to store my possessions so the day before I left, I put my sparkly metallic-burgundy Stratocaster copy with white scratchplate and maple neck into the music shop to be sold on consignment, then I had a big clean out and put stuff into charity bins. But after a day of sorting and throwing, I realised I still had way too much. My six boxes of diaries, screenplays, and songwriting sat on the floor like Sisyphus’s boulder multiplied by six. “How many share accommodation places and boarding house dumps have I dragged these anchors to?” Since our creative potential is infinite, there’s plenty more where they came from, so I bit the bullet and threw out everything from before 1999. That left me with one box of book notes, one backpack, and one sports bag. Still a load when you’ve got no money, but doable.

Next morning, the bus was due to leave at seven from Central Station, but all the cabs on Bondi Road were occupied. There are normally zillions of empty ones at that time. Eventually one came at six-forty. No way was I going to make it. “How long do you reckon it will take to Central Station?”

“Not long,” grunted the fat old man.

Normally in such situations, you get all the red lights, the car crawls, and time accelerates, but this time the opposite happened. This guy zipped through back streets and ducked between cars and trucks, yet somehow stayed within the speed limit. Some kind of Zen, magic carpet taxi driver! We were gliding up behind the bus in under fifteen minutes. “Wow, man, so much faster than other taxi drivers.”

“Yah,” he grunted as he took my payment and tip, then Shazammed! away. The bus driver chucked my stuff in the luggage compartment, and we were away right on seven.

After stopping at Parramatta and Chatswood, the bus churned its way up the coast on the twelve-hour journey to Byron Bay. I worried about accommodation and money, which are among my worst skill-areas. Alongside career. Oh, and women. And enlightenment. So all I could think to do was to chant OM quietly to myself all the way. Then I remembered the envelope from Marla. I opened it and found a little card wishing me luck, and there were six fifty-dollar notes! Gee, what a wise woman! But does that mean she thought I was a charity case?

In Byron Bay, I scrounged around - a few nights in a garage here, a few nights on a sofa there. It was still summer so accommodation was booked out, but within a week I was in Belongil Beachhouse, a backpacker dorm.

Steadfastly, I typed my notes onto floppy disks in internet cafes, sometimes up to seven hours per day. I also OM’d (Is that the spiritual person’s equivalent of “D’oh!”?) and read the beginning of My Master Is Myself by Andrew Cohen, the end of an early edition of The Knee Of Listening by Adi Da, and all of Be As You Are, by Ramana Maharshi. All three were bereft of useful comments on accommodation, money, careers, and women (not necessarily in that order). They were strictly about enlightenment as if enlightenment somehow doesn’t include accommodation, money, careers, and women. Hippies and spiritual seeker friends had no clue what I should do either. Barry Long followers were strict about “getting your life right”. A friend, Cole, who was into A Course in Miracles, was willing to collaborate in the creation of a personal growth business, but I was disappointing him with my lack of physical dynamism. However, I mainly spoke to Osho sannyassins and satsang groupies, so “Go with the flow” was the most common suggestion. But what if the flow empties into a smelly sewer or torrid waterfall?

After four weeks I was down to two-hundred dollars and the pile of notebook ink in need of conversion to floppy disk magnetism hadn’t diminished much, and I had begun spanking my bum to make myself go typing. At an internet cafe, I skimmed back over the material I had already typed and could see the books would need a lot more work - like a year or two. What to do in the meantime? Magic was not happening. Slumping there, I felt like never typing another word again, but I was still debating the point with myself. Just at that moment, I looked up and saw a fat man walk through the door and I had sort of an x-ray vision into his belly where a hell scene was unfolding - red and fiery with people being flogged to work. “Uh-oh, I’m losing my mind from the OMing, and the reading, and my accumulated failures.”

Nevertheless, I got more serious about meditation and keeping a diary because that was all I could think to do with my money running out and my motivation to type now dead. In my pocket diary, I wrote long tracts of enquiry in response to the books I was reading. For example, on the topic of trust, I wrote:

“By buying the ‘[money and accommodation] problem’, I actually step out of the livingness of life and this is itself the first distrust. So it’s true that trust is needed. And it begins with trusting that you don’t need the story of separation and problems. In fact, the ideal of trust is a goal and a falsehood. The seeing of the falsehood of problems and separation leaves only what could be called trust but is really only the livingness of now. No matter how I look at it, it keeps coming back to that.” Later, I wrote, “I’m sure I understand, so where are the fireworks? Ah, it doesn’t matter. Nothing needs to happen.”

Also, when on a quiet beach at sunrise, I would do things like letting my arms move how they felt like moving (like tree branches swaying in the wind or kung fu moves) as I chanted OM. The red-headed bush turkeys and red-beaked seagulls must have thought the red-nosed human was crazy. Every time money worries popped up, I chanted or read or let my body move how it wanted or I wrote in my diary. I experimented with opposite viewpoints like imagining I was an apple tree producing fruit rather than needing things, or giving my last five dollars away, or receiving a million dollars for nothing. I drew two diagrams. One was a zig-zag line going downwards and narrowing until it became an arrow pointing downward. Another was of a vertical line with imbalanced horizontal lines across it.

But it all must have been having an effect because one night I woke up around midnight and it felt like my body was melting or I was melting into my body. It was very pleasant. It was a relaxation beyond any normal kind of physical relaxation. It felt like something else inside me was melting. Perhaps liberation is an energetic phenomenon.

The next afternoon I had a beer and in a flash of insight wrote, “Is it all about ending leaks to stagnant ponds? Yes! Release! Beer = gulps of wisdom! I was trying to gather security, which was only fuelling my weakness. It’s all about discovering and cleaning up leaks - completion of illusion.” Later, I went to a cafe, and a refreshingly impolite waitress said, “You eat out too much.” She was right. During the previous week, I had started doing a slimmed-down version of Byron Katie’s technique called “The Work”, so I tried that again. I focussed on cause and effect issues using the formula, “By doing X action, I get Y result”. For example, I wrote, “By reacting to loneliness and boredom, I go to cafes, which maintains money problems and caffeine addiction.” I did this technique for five minutes, but then gave up and wrote, “It’s all unravelling. I can’t be perfect or repress.”

That night I woke some time after two and laid on my back, meditating. Soon I felt the melting again, but this time it activated some strange process inside. Energy in my body withdrew from my extremities and belly, and became centred in my head as a spark of light. Then I - as that spark of light - travelled down to the right side of my chest where a golden Buddha-like being with a tall pointy golden hat communicated in kind of psychic way:

“I am the/in the/as the heart of all beings. All beings… within. All beings… connected.”

Then he gestured to his right where a space scene opened up and many beings were meditating with cords interconnecting their hearts. Then he turned to me and asked:

“And you…?”

With that, my attention turned back on myself and I started separating from him. Then I tried to return to him, but the harder I tried, the faster I separated until I reached the centre of my head again.

Then I opened my eyes and saw light coming from the right side of my chest. It seemed that the light was somehow projecting the world in some kind of fourth dimensional way. I remained still as I laid there enjoying the deepest sense of belonging, and memorising his words.

Then I heard footsteps getting louder along the verandah until a woman dorm resident, a Brit, opened the door and walked in. She promptly stripped naked and began playing the dancing exhibitionist, unaware that anyone was awake. In confusion, my eyes darted back and forth from her curvacious body to the light radiating from my chest.

It seems the Buddha guy left a few details out. I mean, how’s a bloke supposed to concentrate on refined spiritual matters when a naked woman is frollicking a few metres away? It’s that temptress Eve all over again. Only, she’s the apple!

Next morning, I walked along the beach to the Beach Hotel for a celebratory breakfast. Over the PA system played songs I’d never heard before with poignant lyrics like, “I want to be the sunlight in your eyes” (Head And The Heart by Chris De Burgh), “I’ve got to make a connection” (I Got The Message by ZZ Top), and “You’re standing on the ledge” (On The Ledge by Hughes Turner Project). I sat gazing out to the ocean and writing in my diary about the previous night’s experience. There was also a slight pain like the pain in the eyes when seeing overly bright light except it was located in the right side of the chest.

“Why was he golden? Why was he a he? It was the most satisfying state. It was such a relief. Might it get boring over time? Does the pleasure of it require a body? Why was it a male figure? Because I’m male? Siva/Shakti? Was it just another aspect of reality or it? It was funny that it was followed by the arrival of a naked female backpacker, which stimulated a familiar stirring in my loins. It was like the polarity of inner and outer. Perhaps out of the ocean of love appears a form that is attractive to or creates its opposite from out of that ocean. As soon as part of the One craves or clings or makes an object of the bliss of oneness, its opposite must arise. Perhaps there is an eternal dance or conflict between the masculine and feminine.”

What about his tall pointy hat? He sure didn’t get that at Grace Bros. And isn’t funny that I’d been searching all over the world for a larger perspective, and it turns out it’s only twelve inches away, and inside me and everyone?! And we’re in it already. How hard can it be? It should be for everyone. A measley twelve inches! So, out of all the things I was doing, what was the key? Be willing to let your whole life unravel and be the “livingness” of life without ideals or goals? Or simply stop objectifying? I wrote, “There’s nothing you can do. You can only be it.” But I’m not satisfied with that answer, because you need to work to understand even that idea.

Later at the Beach Hotel, I saw a spiritually inclined friend, Mitch, and seeing my enthusiasm, he asked, “Was that your first spiritual experience?”

“No. But this whole world is a spiritual experience.” And I gestured towards the ocean, and he agreed. I don’t like the word “spiritual”. Why distinguish this magnificent universe from “spiritual”? If it all came from The One, then isn’t it all “spiritual”? Besides, we are supposed to be inside the Heart Being, and I presume he’s “spiritual”.

“Why do you call it “the heart being”, when it’s on the right side instead of the left?”

“I think he meant “heart” as in centre of your being.”

I’d had other great so-called “spiritual” experiences before, but this one went to the core. Isn’t it funny how you have an experience and think, “This is it,” only to find a bigger “it” later? This one gave me the greatest sense of peace imaginable. I belonged in the very fabric of the universe. But the main thing I appreciated was that I finally heard something from the horse’s mouth, so to speak; yet it wasn’t that original - every new-ager will tell you, “We’re all interconnected.” Is being in the heart of all beings a good job? Or was he leading up to say, “Please help me escape”?

John Howard - who was not a new-ager but rather the Australian Prime Minister at the time - wouldn’t let me go on the dole in Byron Bay because the unemployment rate there is too high. No exceptions for those trying to integrate Golden Heart Being experiences, etcetera. After all, look at the wonderful jobs in the army and ASIO after 9/11! So a week later, with fifty bucks in my wallet, I was on a bus to Brisbane to study the enneagram - an ancient personality-typing system, or, more specifically, an ego-typing system. This time, there were no envelopes in my pocket with “Bon Voyage!” cards and three hundred dollars. But it occurred to me that if Marla hadn’t given me three hundred dollars, I would have been in Byron for a week less and I probably wouldn’t have had the heart being experience. Magic happened!

Upon arrival, I booked into a West End hostel where the beds were a metre apart and the floor was slippery and smelly from the shower and chlorinated pool water. With my tail between my legs, I entered the Brisbane Centrelink office to beg for mercy for quitting my Sydney job. They relented, but due to some technicality, my first dole payment wasn’t going to be paid for two weeks.

Next morning - a Friday - using the last two dollars of my mobile phone credit, I phoned the music shop to see if my guitar had been sold. The manager took a moment to find it, then said, “No. Nice guitar for the price. Should sell quick.”

“Do you want to buy it?”

“Ah, maybe. Let me see.” He plucked it for a few seconds, then picked up the phone again. “Yeah, maybe. I couldn’t give you the three-twenty you’d get from a consignment sale because we’d have to hold it in stock till it sold.”

“How much, then?”

“Two-fifty?”

“Okay.”

That would make a big difference. Over the weekend, I visited the ATM machine, and its cold hard screen kept digitally reporting the grand total of $0.44. At least the numbers were coloured gold. I figured maybe the payment wouldn’t be processed till the next business day, which was Monday. But when Monday morning came, the ATM still said $0.44, so I phoned the music shop using the last dollar of an faded Telstra phonecard.

“We do our banking on Thursday, so it should be in your account on Friday.”

Now I had only a few coins in my pocket, and the magic had totally faded. Time for more humble pie. I visited a homeless hostel to see if they had any room, but they wanted fourteen bucks per night up front. So I went to the pawn broker and showed the shop assistant my watch and mobile phone. He sneered, “We’re not accepting watches or phones at the moment.” Rejected by a pawnboker! Does it get any worse? There was nothing else for it: I had to put my bags in the hostel storage garage and hit the streets. Maybe it will be character building, I told myself.

My first homeless day consisted of walking and sitting, walking and sitting, looking for coins on the ground, walking and sitting. It’s amazing how many gold beer bottletops are on the ground. Sure, feeling the afterglow of the “spiritual” experience and the background peace was nice, but why didn’t that Heart Being dude tell me how to get money? If he’s so cosmic and all, why didn’t he tell me where to live? Why didn’t he give me the phone number of my soulmate? Maybe he’s too busy. Maybe he’s too timeless to understand our timebound problems here on mere 3D Earth. Unless the British backpacker was my soulmate? Maybe the Heart Being handed her too me and I only had to reach out and take her. Just reach out. Or perhaps you’ve got to give everything time to settle down.

For dinner, I finished some raisin bread that I had been living off for the last few days, then sat around some more and walked some more. Around midnight I found a park bench in the botanic gardens and tried to make myself comfortable. The joints of my shoulders and hips felt the pressure of the bench’s metal plank edges, and my tummy was was unhappy. As I closed my eyes, I remembered reading about a dero in Centennial Park back in Sydney being murdered as he slept. And there was that movie with Robin Williams where vicious youths tried to set a dero on fire. Isn’t the Heart Being in them? Maybe he can protect me. Maybe from within them? Or he could leap out of my chest and kung fu their butts? Poke them in the eye with his tall pointy hat?! No, I’ll have to stay awake in case someone attacks me. I’ll have to stay awake… stay awake…

Cold wetness on my scalp brought me out of a light sleep. “Uh-oh. That’ll be the gang of youths playing tricks on me. I’ll jump up super quick to surprise them with Kung Fu or Ninjutsu. Quick!”

I lept up and spun around into full kung fu attack pose. What the…? About ten Brush-Tailed Possums were hanging around, all bushy-furred with big dark eyes, impossibly cute in the moonlight. There was even a mother with a baby clinging to her back. I didn’t frighten them at all. They were like, “Hey, whatever, dude. What’s your problem? We’re just sniffing you. And… maybe licking you… a bit. Nothing wrong with that.”

I sat down, gazing at them as they closed in to sniff me again. What were they sniffing me for? They were so gentle and sweet-natured. I wished I had something to feed them. After a while I shooed them so I could get back to not sleeping. But they wouldn’t go. Maybe they’ll protect me. Beware! Vicious attack possums! So I laid down, and tried not to sleep again. Don’t sleep…

Within a minute, there was a lick on my scalp. I sat up. “Why the hell are you sniffing and licking me?” I knew they liked fruit, but, I’m not an apple or a female British backpacker or anything. Maybe they could still smell the raisin bread. But then why lick my scalp? Then it dawned on me - fruit essence shampoo! There must have been residue on my scalp.

I had to leave them because they weren’t going to leave me alone. Besides, it was now after four and starting to get too cool, so I kept walking to warm up. My inner critic kicked in, “God, Martin, what are you doing sleeping on park benches and being eaten by possums? There are millions of beds in the world. Why can’t you even get something as basic as a bed sorted out? Clueless.”

At seven o’clock I laid face-down on the grass in the morning sunlight, soaking in the warmth. With my eyes closed, I wondered what I would do for food that day and fantasised about sitting in the sunshine of a Bondi cafe with a latte and plucking a six-string while watching the play of light on the fresh blue sea.

“Wanna coffee, mate?” I sat up and looked around. An old guy was chugging along about ten metres away. “Come on, come for coffee at the van.” A coffee sounded great. I picked up my backpack and jogged up to him and he told me about the Christian coffee van that came every morning. “If we’re quick, we can be nearly first in line.”

When we joined the queue behind the van, a Japanese tourist stopped and took a photo of us as I gave him the finger. Soon I got my paper cup of instant coffee and powdered milk, two white bread cheese sandwiches, and an apple. Prasadam from Jesus! Actually, he also once said, “I am in you and you are in me.”

We went and sat in the Sun by the river. “Thanks, for telling me about this,” I said to the old guy, whose name is sometimes Leslie.

“No worries mate. There’s one at sunset too, just past Queen Street Mall.”

I bit into a sandwich and gulped coffee from the styrofoam cup. My God, it was the best coffee and the best cheese sandwich I’d ever had. Better than a cappuccino in Double Bay or a croissant in Paris. I thought, “Is this magic happening again? Is this the effect of going with the flow? Well, it’s just survival, rather than flourishing, but this moment is good.”

That night, I broke the apple up and gave it to the possums. They weren’t very enthusiastic. “It’s not a great apple, I admit. One day, I’ll bring you some ideal possum food. I promise.”

The possums nibbled on, just being polite.

- THE END -

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Let’s Create Worldwide Happiness

Introduction

Humankind has performed great feats and made many valuable discoveries. We now have excellent understanding of the world and we have the communication technology to spread that understanding easily. These successes have been worthwhile in themselves, but they are also milestones in our progress towards the creation of worldwide happiness. The subconscious motivation for our endeavours has been to spread happiness. The time is right for this subconscious goal to be made conscious.

Until now, we pursued happiness generally working in this order: self, partner, family, community, nation, and finally world. Our assumption has been that by increasing security we provide the foundations for happiness to arise naturally. However, focussing on security tends to keep us at the competitive level of 'us vs them'. This leads to the creation of enemies thereby spoiling our security and happiness.

While it is true that strong fences make good neighbours, we also need to work for the happiness of our neighbours. In resolving disputes, we need to emphasise our desire for the happiness of both sides.

Our greater potential

Our greater potential for individual and group happiness can manifest only in the context of worldwide happiness. In a happy world we enjoy the happiness of others, and the activities of others assists the fulfilment of our own potential. Without worldwide happiness we feel the pain of others, we hurt others, and experience retaliation from others.

Happiness for human beings on Earth means enjoying present reality while creating a good future reality. Ultimately, all life shares this purpose. Simply put, the energy of the Universe manifests its potential in spectacular galaxies, stars, and planets, and then it creates myriad wondrous living forms such as a peacock, a rose, and Angelina Jolie. After taking care of survival matters, animals move towards the pleasant and the enjoyable e.g. sunbathing, playing, and singing.

Progressing from survival to happiness

Human life has five natural stages that will inevitably culminate in spreading happiness to all:

1. Fighting for survival.

2. Establishing security.

3. Appreciating life.

4. Enjoying others and the world.

5. Co-creating the future.

In other words, we survive to establish security; we establish security to live; we live to appreciate and enjoy our bodies, our minds, Planet Earth, and The Universe; and by appreciating and enjoying life together, we co-create the future.

These stages of life fit in with all philosophies and religions since philosophy essentially means 'love of life', and the major religions hold that we earn paradise or liberation in the next life according to what we do in this life. If you explore why people pursue anything, you will find that the quest for greater happiness for themselves or others is at the heart of it.

The crucial transition is from the instinctual competitive survival focus of stage 1 to the intelligent cooperative happiness focus of stages 2-5. This is the change we are now ready to make.

The fighting for survival stage is painful but brief. It is a blind instinctual reaction to an emergency, and emergencies are the consequence of a lack of knowledge. Fighting continues until the knowledge of better ways arises. The next stage of establishing security is even briefer than the fighting for survival stage because establishing security comes from knowledge and pro-activity. Establishing security is about cooperatively caring for everyone's security, and this is the foundation for the stages of appreciation, enjoyment, and co-creation.

However, if we do not know about the necessity of all-inclusive cooperation, then we unwittingly repeat aspects of the rudimentary stage of fighting for survival. This leads to destructive behaviours that generate enemies, and so it spoils the very security to which we cling. Progressing to higher stages, on the other hand, increases security because appreciation, enjoyment, and co-creation lead to learning and goodwill, and these inevitably increase security. With the growth in understanding, our actions expand from competing with other groups to spreading happiness to all people.

Given that we have advanced levels of information and technology, we must be ready to let go of fighting and to move on to higher stages. The tree of humankind is ready to strengthen and grow through cooperation. With the advantages of modernity, effective action can be taken quickly and easily.

Objections

Interestingly, the majority of people I have spoken to either seem to have given up on the possibility of worldwide happiness, or believe that it is centuries away "…if we survive that long." Most people agree that they would like to walk down the street fearlessly and joyfully in a carnival of love. In contemplation of this, their eyes brighten, their breathing relaxes, and their body language opens. But then clouds close over as they conclude with statements like, "I just don't think it's possible", or "Not in my lifetime." Some people literally topple off their chairs in their efforts to prove that worldwide happiness is impossible.

Objections generally fall into two categories:

Objection 1: "Worldwide happiness is a bad goal."

Objection 2: "Worldwide happiness is impossible because of Earthly or human limitations."

A good refutation for objection 1 is that if you are sensitive to feelings of happiness, you will also be sensitive to the suffering of others, so your happiness depends on others' happiness. In addition, to fulfil our potential we need the happy cooperation of others.

A good refutation for objection 2 is that information and technology have improved to the point where worldwide happiness is now physically possible (e.g. you are reading about it on the internet right now). Although we might think that people are selfish, greedy, or ignorant, we all share the same ultimate goal of happiness, so people only need to learn what works i.e. all-inclusive cooperation.

The cause of objections

People argue against the possibility of worldwide happiness because the idea triggers a network of negative conclusions based on the following repeated evidence:

- The warnings of evil and entrapment promulgated by some religious people.

- The conflict and meaninglessness emphasised by some scientists (e.g. the idea that life is about survival of the fittest).

- The past horrors highlighted by historians.

- The daily horror updates exhibited in the media.

The thinking of humankind is restricted because it takes place within a philosophical ghetto maintained by the momentum of inherited negativity. This is why most people have not seriously considered the possibility of living in a palace of worldwide happiness. In the past, we subconsciously emphasised and spread the old rumour that life is difficult except for the strong, the clever, the evil, and the lucky, and that we must struggle for survival and happiness. That is the predominant worldview we live in today, and it needs to be challenged.

Our higher instincts

While we made war, we also created great art and technological wonders. We were destructive only because we knew no better way to deal with threats or imagined threats. We have been constructive because this is what we naturally do when we have free time, inspiration, and knowledge.

We commonly hear that violence, selfishness, and greed are 'human nature.' Some people tell us we are animals born to compete, and others tell us we are sinners born to submit to impossible ideals. Such views inadvertently emphasise the worst of our past and reinforce our lower instincts and sense of powerlessness. To deal with this negativity about the world and other people, we can simply emphasise the future and stimulate our higher instincts.

However, emphasising our higher instincts does not mean advocating heroism or ideals. Those who promote inspirational success stories ultimately produce a negative effect. This is because success stories are about heroes overcoming adversity, and since the storytellers do not address the primary adversity, they inadvertently reinforce the presumed inevitability of adversity.

The most useful hero would be the one who ends adversity as such, thereby putting heroes and idealists out of business. Then we can all get on with living out our potential, rather than comparing ourselves with heroes and struggling pointlessly in an unnecessarily difficult world. Why presume that we need to fight as heroes or submit to ideals in order to live happily?

In reality, we only need information that is true to life. True information is universal and reliable - the natural progressive ways of life work well. The most relevant information is that all human beings desire happiness and they all have goodwill somewhere within them that they want to express. Knowing this, we can focus our attention on what will be effective.

What will cause worldwide happiness?

To achieve our greater potential, we only need to widely communicate the idea that establishing worldwide happiness is necessary and easy. Communication quickly leads to foresight, which stimulates the will, which leads to co-creation, learning, and fulfilment of potential. As soon as people get the idea, they spontaneously act more cooperatively, thereby increasing happiness. Many people are already doing it, but the predominant worldview of competition and adversity is diminishing the results.

Cooperation uses less time and energy than conflict does, and it produces better results. With a focus on happiness, we act with increasing harmony and inclusiveness, and we learn more quickly from our experience. This will create an environment of goodwill. In that environment the rich will help the poor to help themselves, the strong will help the weak to become strong, and we will resolve misunderstandings before conflicts arise.

If we exclude anyone, then we only create trouble for ourselves later. Even villains need to be included, at least in principle. They are waiting for their hearts to be unlocked and their goodwill to be released. In the meantime, we can generate greater security, appreciation, enjoyment, and creativity, and then invite criminals, terrorists, despots, presidents, prime ministers, opposition leaders, and media magnates to join in and be happy too. Once a higher standard of happiness has been achieved, stragglers will be attracted to it. Since the essence of human nature is to seek greater happiness, the counterproductive methods of conflict and exclusion will be recognised as redundant.

The goal is ultimately small and easily achieved. Rather than having to change 6 billion human beings, we only need to adjust the prevailing worldview from the competitive survival focus to the cooperative happiness focus. This change occurs naturally once it sinks in that the preliminary survival emergency is over for our species and that happiness is both the next step and the reason for surviving. We only have to spread the word.

Easy practical examples

When sufficient numbers of people understand the necessity and ease of worldwide happiness it would naturally lead to the implementation of measures such as:

SECURITY LEVEL

- Banning war, warlike activities, and violence

- Ending starvation and easily treated diseases

- Committing 5% of national income, resources, and defence personnel for international policing and emergency work

- Preparing for pandemics and catastrophes

- Reassessing national and international security

- Finding common ground for resolving conflict

HAPPINESS LEVEL

- Improving education and helping people find their true passions

- Developing a national and international focus on happiness and fulfilment

- Increasing study and research

- Rewarding cooperation

- Promoting creative intelligent people to increase appreciation, enjoyment, and creativity

- Fostering goodwill activities

- Preferring beauty and quality over cost-cutting

- Developing both a close and a wide sense of community

Happiness first

Worldwide happiness is the most important issue for humankind. Until now, we discussed, and polarised over, secondary issues without stating the primary issue i.e. ultimate goal. Secondary issues, such as territory, national security, and fixing people's behaviour, have remained unresolved for centuries. Each war is marketed as being the last war, which will bring final peace, security, justice, freedom, holiness, and wealth, yet wars continue; each government promises to stop crime, yet crime continues. Instead of wasting energy through diversion into secondary goals, we can focus on the primary, all-encompassing goal of worldwide happiness. A by-product of this would be an earlier end war, crime, starvation, and other large problems anyway.

We can successfully work through any political, moral, and economic issue by finding common ground. The desire for happiness is the most reliable common ground. By making mutual happiness the reference point for our discussions, other goals either instantly make sense or they are revealed to be counterproductive.

In principle, every plan and action should benefit all (or at least not hurt others) in the short-term and long-term. Aiming for the benefit of all is more effective than aiming for one's own benefit, or for the benefit of any individual or group. Expansive, inclusive, harmonious goals are life affirming, whereas smaller goals are often unhappy defences against life.

We could ask every leader how each policy would contribute to the spreading of happiness. Harping on about supposed security issues only begs the question of why we want to be secure i.e. why do we want to continue living? Surely, it is to enjoy life and to fulfil our potential. And what leader would not want to support that? Why aim any lower? Spreading happiness and goodwill works better than more fences, laws, and bombs.

A fresh global dialogue

Due to the fog caused by the prevailing competitive survival worldview, we need a fresh global dialogue on our purpose i.e. the purpose of human life on Planet Earth - here amongst all the plants and animals. The greater the number of people contemplating our purpose and the means of achieving our purpose, the sooner our greater potential will manifest.

Your actions could make the difference. For example, you could discuss the subject of worldwide happiness with friends and acquaintances. They might communicate about it further. The process you start might reach some charismatic person who can say it better than anyone else can.

Regularly asking straightforward questions could lead to the spreading of a more meaningful worldview for humankind. Would you like more enjoyment and opportunities for fulfilment? Do you want to be free from seeing people suffering in poverty and war? Do you want to see how great this world can be when based on cooperation rather than competition? Do you want to see humankind respond to life in a way that more appropriately matches the magic and wonder of this majestic universe?

It is fascinating to see what comes up when talking about worldwide happiness. Some responses are astonishingly negative. Nevertheless, if you ask objectors to imagine walking down the street in a carnival of love, especially on a Friday night or on a Sunday afternoon, you will see their bodies relax and a twinkle lighting up their eyes. It is like returning a gasping fish out of water to its natural habitat. Simply saying, 'Maybe it's possible,' opens doors.

When enough of us are aware of the possibility of worldwide happiness, it will happen. We already have the physical and mental resources, so we only need to stimulate the will that is present in us all. This happens by discussing and acknowledging the direction we are already subconsciously heading in - the fulfilment of our greater potential.

Conclusion

When the will is stimulated in a sufficient number of people, I believe we can create worldwide happiness in 10 years. What else would we do? In the 60s, technology and information reached the level required to send a human being to the moon, and now technology and information has reached the level required to create worldwide happiness. The time is right.

Finally, if you like this article, please pass it on. Send it to friends and ask them to pass it on if they like it. Otherwise, I welcome your responses, suggestions, or objections. And keep an eye out for my book called Worldwide Happiness - The Necessity and Ease of Creating Paradise on Earth, which should be published in 2010.

Martin Gifford.