"Who is this God person anyway?"

‘God’ – as in ‘Do you believe in God?’-  is a hard worked little word, and can be taken to mean many different things.

I mostly use it in this blog to refer to an unseen sacred numinous principle, an ultimate reality; not a being, and certainly not possessed of any qualities that we could imagine. But I’m aware that I do also use the word to refer to the aspect of this numinous principle to which I pray. (For more on this see the post 'Full Circle - Thou, It, I, Thou')

Karen Armstrong, (whose book ‘The Case for God’ should be given free by the Government to everybody attaining the age of 35, and anybody younger who asks for it,) maintains that in earliest times many humans were well aware that no ‘being’ could be responsible for all they experienced, but worshipped and respected ‘Being’:  “a fundamental energy that supports and animates everything that exists…. You could not see, touch or hear it but could only watch it at work in the people, objects and natural forces around you.” Whatever this was, it was impersonal and transcendent.

Perhaps this is why the natural forces thus animated were themselves anthropomorphised as gods and goddesses in many societies, for example: Agni, the god of fire, Apollo the sun god. I used the term ‘gods’ in this way in my post ‘Honouring the Gods‘, and modern psychotherapy makes much use of these as a way of identifying the unconscious driving and pulling forces within human nature. Buddhism, which is unconcerned as to whether there is or isn’t an unseen sacred numinous principle – Buddhism is an agnostic religion- nevertheless makes reference to the ‘realm of the gods’. These gods are powerful superhumans, enjoying a life of luxury, rather like most the Greek gods and goddesses on Mount Olympus. Like them, they can interfere in the life of ordinary people but, also like the Greek gods and many other pantheons of gods, they are neither omniscient nor omnipotent.

When I was taught Christianity, I was taught that those who worshipped pantheons of gods, or one in particular of a pantheon of gods (Zeus, for example) had got it wrong, and that only monotheism was right. However, one couldn’t help noticing, as one made further investigations into this, just how like Zeus or any other ‘sky god’ or ‘high god’ the Christian God seemed to be. 

Unlike ours, many societies did not (and do not) have a problem worshipping a pantheon of gods, while being absolutely clear that these gods do not represent ultimate reality. To quote Karen Armstrong again “There was no ontological gulf separating these gods from the rest of the cosmos; everything had emerged from the same sacred stuff.” 

I should say here that I do think that Christianity in this country, the UK, tends towards fundamentalism (inclined towards a literal reading of the bible). I remember the outcry when an Archbishop expressed the view that it really didn't matter whether Jesus was born to a virgin or not. However, I consider myself a Christian, because I use Christian symbolism and myths in my meditations and prayers, and I'm completely happy to pay my dues to any number of  'archangels' representing various principles such as 'truth', 'compassion', 'courage' and 'serenity' without ever getting these confused with the sacred unseen numinous principle; the ultimate reality. I think that fundamentalists have completely failed to grasp the actual point of religion.

Millenia ago it seems the "Upanishadic sages [in India] were among the first to articulate another of the universal principles of religion....The truths of religion are accessible only when you are prepared to get rid of the selfishness, greed and self-preoccupation that, perhaps inevitably, are engrained in our thoughts and behaviour but are also the source of so much pain." (Armstrong.)

I would be very interested to know to what others reading this are referring when they use the word ‘God’.

Wars on Earth are initiated in Heaven

About a month back, one of my Kabbalah teachers stated that wars on earth are initiated in Heaven, (as opposed to in the psychological or physical universes ; see my blog posts 'The Four Universes' and 'A Spiritual Cosmology'.)

I have taken a little while to think about this. My teacher was referring, among other things, to the role of Providence, something I’ve already touched on in this blog (see 'Vegetable, Animal and Human People'.) Wars ‘stir up’ ‘vegetable’ people, affording them opportunities to become’ animal’ or ‘human’ people. They move populations around, face them with new situations, speed up the introduction of new technology, and test the mettle of all those involved. Like natural disasters, they provide opportunities for acts of courage and love, and not just towards our family or our comrades, but towards our enemies as well.

And of course, wars are responsible for terrible suffering and loss.

How I long sometimes for the God of my childhood, for ‘gentle Jesus, meek and mild’ (his smashing things up in the Temple in anger was swiftly glossed over). God did not start wars, humans did, in strict disobedience of Him. God was Love.

Of course ‘he’ is, and a whole lot more.

Even as a child I knew that there was something awry with the view of God that my Sunday School teachers were giving me. So a lot of evil might be down to humans using their free will, but what about the natural world? Did it become red in tooth and claw because Eve ate the apple and, if so, wasn’t that a bit ‘unfair’ on animals? Furthermore, if God cared so much, why didn’t He intervene more to stop really terrible things? But it didn’t matter because, when we died, we would all go to heaven and live in bliss and splendour for ever and ever, so that was all right then.

It was via James Hillman’s writings, such as his book ‘The Soul’s Code’ that I first became aware of just how ruthless the soul can be in pursuit of its Divine purpose, and what it can put its various earthly incarnations through in the process. When I came to study Kabbalah I learned that existence in its fullness is manifested between the two opposing poles of mercy AND severity (force and form, see my blog post 'A Spiritual Cosmology') The aim of the kabbalist is to help to keep these two poles balanced, to proceed in consciousness back up through the universes, using a path centred between the two poles, to reunite again at one with the Divine, bringing with us all our experiences of those realms. And while we make our journey upwards, we act to ‘bring down’ the freedom and glory and Divinity of the upper universes to this material one.

Each incarnation is an adventure. Don’t get too attached to it, or anything in it because, like a dream, it will all dissolve. Throughout this life, and many others, you’ll win some, you’ll lose some. It is all simply a process which you can use to become more and more fully human, wiser, more loving, more aware of who you really are. Like childbirth, it’s going to hurt and, yes, you’ll voluntarily go through the whole thing again.

Another Seeker

Well souled and healed! I didn't think of that, Joe Delaney did (but I wish it had been me.)

I have been enjoying watching two of Joe's presentations on YouTube. These are the second and third talks he gave out of a series of three. Unfortunately the first wasn't recorded, but he re-caps the main points from that talk at the beginning of the second. You can see them at:

Talk 2
and then
Talk 3

IMHO, Joe has humour, knowledge and insight. Enjoy

The Four Universes

Oh dear; it seems that my fifth blog (A Spiritual Cosmology) left some people feeling more confused than they were before. In this post, therefore, I will try to make what I was attempting to say a little clearer…

I was taught at Sunday School that there was Earth, Heaven and Hell. You lived on Earth, and when you died, you went to Heaven or Hell. Heaven seemed to be somewhere 'up there' beyond the stars, and hell was 'down there'.

Then I came across the following saying by a mystic (I paraphrase): "Why do people ask where the soul goes when a person dies? It doesn't have to go anywhere, it's already there." I found this puzzling, but then I realised that maybe it was like asking where the body goes when you wake up from dreams. It doesn't go anywhere - it's been there, all along, in bed, while your mind was off all over the place, imagining all sorts of scenarios. All that happens when you wake up is a change of consciousness - in this case from dreaming to waking. This is somewhat like changing channels on a TV; one minute you're on one frequency, the next you're on another. I suppose that one way of describing spiritual development is that you become capable of experiencing finer and finer "frequencies". 

What I am going to describe now is not something I have pulled out of thin air. The scheme of things I set out below is often referred to as 'the perennial philosophy', because mystics from all religions, and from many different times and places, have experienced this reality for themselves. Details might differ, but the 'great chain of being' that I'm going to try to explain does not vary in its overall order or principles: the Absolute brings a Divine universe into existence, which in turn produces a spiritual universe (made of denser 'stuff'/energy). In turn the spiritual universe produces a mental universe (the universe of mind), again denser than its predecessor, and which in turn produces the most dense universe of all- the universe with the most 'rules' and conditions- the physical universe.

While we're alive, most of us identify with the densest frequency, that of physical matter. We think that the body is us. Materialist scientists say that the mind is just a result of electrical activity in the physical brain. What the perennial philosophy states is that it's actually the other way around. The world of mind is responsible for the material world. Something has to exist 'in mind' before it can exist physically. You and I existed as mind before we took on bodies. As far as I can tell, once we've 'incarnated' as a physical body, most of us are firmly attached to it. 

Others, however, claim to have 'OBE's - out of the body experiences. I know one person who claimed that she used this ability to see over people's heads at the theatre (she just 'rose up' out of her body, and her ability to see 'rose up' as well.) However, it did make her epilepsy much worse. I have since read a suggestion that epilepsy might be the result of the mind not being seated as securely in the physical brain as most people's. 

I personally believe, from various experiences I've had, and that other people have described, that our higher minds are capable of roaming free all over the place while we're asleep, though most don't go very far. We do not remember a thing about it in the morning, any more than we can remember former lives, or being newly born. Spiritual 'adepts' (of which the philosopher KenWilber claims to be one - see his book 'One Taste') can stay conscious even during sleep, and they do remember.

There has also been a lot of argument about 'NDE's - near death experiences, where people who have physically died (i.e. are brain dead) are somehow resuscitated, and can describe what had been going on around them while they were dead. Materialists will say that this is all down to the brain producing all sorts of chemicals to reassure itself as it dies. But it seems much simpler to me just to accept that the mind survives physical death, and to remember that if you are with someone when they die, they can see and hear you, before they move on to the next part of their particular journey.

So, to summarise, the mind pre-exists the body. And according to the perennial philosophy, spirit pre-exists mind. (In the Kabbalic version of the perennial philosophy, what you would think of traditionally as your individual soul exists where spirit overlaps with your particular mind. See the diagram above, and the diagram is the next post 'The Human Being'.) The important thing is that you can use your higher mental functions (the ones that do more than make your brain work properly by, e.g. firing up your central nervous system) to access the spiritual universe, and indeed the Divine universe. An example of a higher mental function is your imagination, which is used in visualisation, creative activities and so on.

As I've said before, I think the most useful thing we can do is line up our own will with Divine Will. This is difficult if nobody's ever told you about the existence of Divine Will; (I've talked about the practices that help to line up 'will' with 'Will', in earlier posts). One thing that needs to be said here is that, across these four universes, distance cannot be measured by miles or any similar unit; distance is measured by degree of similarity. The more 'spiritual' you are, the closer to the spiritual universe you become, i.e. to lining yourself up on the same frequency. Personally, I don't think it's a good idea to line up solely with the dense physical body (though it seems as if many people have,) given the temporary nature of that physical body. 

According to the perennial philosophy, our souls are not trapped in the physical body until we die. Our souls continue to exist in the spiritual realm even while we inhabit a physical body. If our souls are not getting the sort of stimulation and sustenance they need, they withdraw back to exist purely in the spiritual realm again, leaving behind a body and mind working purely on 'automatic', i.e. one which is soul-less. I personally believe, though, our soul will come back if we start showing an interest in it. We can be 're-souled'.

Honouring the gods

Life, like a pantheon of jealous gods (take the ancient Greek or Roman Gods for example) makes many and conflicting demands upon us. To deal with these conflicting demands it helps to view these gods and goddesses as representative of the deep urges embedded within us.   

According to certain psychotherapies these urges, mostly unconscious, are an integral part of our soul. Many of us feel a void at the middle of our existence because we have become disconnected from, or 'educated' away from, these urges. Others feel torn by conflicting urges.

Writers like Thomas Moore (see his book ‘Care of the Soul’) concentrate on what these dilemmas can tell us about what our soul needs. (Transpersonal psychotherapies are particularly concerned with this.  Therapies like Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, NLP and hypnotherapy, while extremely effective and useful in their place, are more concerned with alleviating symptoms.) So rather than see envy, for example, as a feeling that we have to overcome and conquer, it would be better if we stepped back for a while and consider what our soul is attempting to resolve, or gain, or draw our attention to.  To begin with, such a step allows us to detach from the envy. Secondly, it can remove the guilt and denial that stops us from exploring these feelings in the depth needed. When we are attached to something we see as unpleasant, unworthy, or shameful, we tend to deny it, which precludes working constructively with it.

Envy, like all emotions, exists for a reason. All emotions, even those deemed unworthy or dangerous, or which are banned by one of the ten commandments,  are indicators that we are paying insufficient attention to something of importance.

If we accept from the start that our emotional and spiritual lives are, by nature, contradictory and paradoxical, we are in a better position to deal with the problems that this throws up. This goes further.

We may think, for example, that all we need is a healthy relationship, somebody to love us who treats us properly, and consider ourselves bereft and incomplete, without this. But, deep down, when we reflect, we know that to love, to experience security in the affections of some-one we love in return, is to risk. Who knows what life might throw up to tear us apart? Or what we might be called upon to sacrifice for this relationship? When I was a counsellor, I had many clients who declared that all they wanted was to love and be loved. But further investigation revealed that that their feelings were actually very ambiguous. This is understandable. Having discovered the conflict, those clients could then go on to make a conscious decision about how much they were prepared to risk, and the price they were prepared, or not, to pay.

And it goes further.

Our soul needs to find some way to hold and honour all the paradoxes within us. Our soul knows that to love is to risk. It wants to expand and hold within itself the dichotomies and the paradoxes. Take for example the demands of two very powerful gods; between Apollo – rational, sober, constructive, light, male, yang; and Dionysus – intuitive, intoxicated, destructive, dark, female, yin.  Consider also that our soul needs to honour both Aphrodite - sexual, sensuous - and Artemis - pure, asexual.  If we repress one, if we ignore it and do not give it the attention and/or the respect it demands, and do not examine it as a signpost to an area of emotional or spiritual inattention/lack of respect, it may well destroy us.  Greek, Roman, Viking and many other mythologies abound in stories of how destructive the gods and goddesses can be if they’re not receiving the attention or respect they think is their due.

 “'In every corner of my soul stands an altar to a different god.” (Fernando Pessoa). If we can accept this, that with every impulse that we have there will be a conflicting impulse, and that in every impulse there is the seed of its own opposite (see the yin/yang symbol,) perhaps of its own destruction, we would not feel so short-changed by our lives. Indeed, we could use that very fact to enrich our immortal souls. 

Full Circle: 'Thou', It, I, 'Thou'

When I was a child it was common in the UK, where I live, to have Christian assemblies at school each morning, with the singing of hymns, and the saying of prayers. I also went to Sunday School and then Church. So I was very familiar from the start with the practice of addressing God in the second person, albeit in archaic language, using Thou and Thine, instead of You and Yours. The God I grew up with was personal, to everyone. The word for that, I know now, is immanent.

Then of course I became a teenager, questioning and querying, and came across the point of view that whatever 'being' had created such a vast universe, in which our planet is a tiny, tiny speck, there was absolutely no reason why that entity should be the least bit interested in us, let alone in whether we allowed women to be priests, or banned people from having sex with some-one of the same gender. God became something it would be daft to address as 'you'. God, if it existed, was 'it', in the third person. For a while for me God became a remote and transcendent entity, which left the question, debated by humanists, agnostics and aetheists for centuries, how do we decide what 'good' or a moral life is, if God has nothing to do with it? The universe also suddenly seemed a very cold and meaningless place. Reading the French existentialists (one of them in the actual French, thanks to it being in my A-level French curriculum.) intensified that feeling. Not really a good thing if you're prone to depression anyway.

But then I came across mysticism and panentheism (the latter being the belief that God is everything in the material universe, and a lot more besides.) This made it clear why so many mystics down the ages have insisted that they were God - some being put to death for it. I've already gone into more detail about this in a post called 'A Spiritual Cosmology'. As I say there, God is the origin of everything, including you and me. We are made out of God. You and I are God. So God moved into the 'first person' grammatically

As regards getting our moral code from God, if we are God, then can we decide our own morality? (Is this where Aleister Crowley's suggestion "Do whatever thou wilt" comes from?)   In our post-modern society, where all values are equal, we are having a particular problem with this one.

Also referring to God in the first person made praying difficult. In praying to God I was praying to myself,  which felt extremely wrong. So I prayed to my 'Higher Self',- my more authentic self, beyond my everyday self which is mired in my ego, and pushed around by my id and superego. There was quite a debate on this in the Integral community, a lot of whose members are Buddhists so, being agnostic -because it's unimportant whether there is a God or not- don't have this problem (though a lot of them pray to Buddha, and other Buddhist saints.) You can see part of this debate at http://integrallife.com/member/david-sunfellow/blog/2nd-person-god-active-force-our-lives though it helps if you know something about 'spiral dynamics' to understand the significance of the colours being referred to. See http://integrallife.com/integral-post/overview-integral-theory

Basically the argument for a 'second person view of God' i.e. referring to God as 'you', is that while we are centred in our egos, and most of us are most of the time, it is more appropriate to envisage God as 'other', though it's not actually true. This helps to keep the ego in check, which  paradoxically helps us to remember who we really are.(God.)

This doesn't solve the morality problem immediately, but down the millenia mystics have reassured us time and time again that one can define as good anything that brings us closer to 'God', i.e. to the spiritual and Divine aspects of existence, and experience suggests that the golden rule is the absolute foundation of that.

While talking about prayer, I remember reading somewhere that many prayers don't 'get heard' anyway, because angels are the relay transmitters, boosting the signal so that prayers can reach the spiritual and Divine worlds (which of course is the spiritual and Divine aspects of ourselves) from which they can be answered. Angels originate and exist in the psychological/mental zone (and archangels originate and exist in the spiritual realm) so they simply don't hear prayers that are purely about materialistic things!!! I am intrigued by this concept, seemingly made up of a mixture of metaphor, allegory and metaphysics- and am still pondering its inner meaning; but basically the mystics are agreed that you don't need to pray for anything because God already knows what you need. I've said a bit more about this in my post on this blog entitled 'Daily Practice'.

I've also decided to continue referring to God as 'Thou' in my prayers, as a way of acknowledging that the 'second person' to whom I am praying is not any old person.

I'd be intrigued to know others' experience of these first person, second person, and third person views of God.

On Suffering

At the end of my last posting, David Birkett commented “I'm interested in your view of creation and the universe as regards those people born or cast into desperate circumstances.” Actually he and I discussed this question in bed that night, because he’s my husband, (we certainly know how to have fun). I thought that I would put the essence of what we discussed in this post, and invite others’ views.

Firstly, on a practical note, the exercises I described in my last post, done regularly, are designed to make it less likely that you generate more self- imposed suffering. Furthermore, when suffering occurs, you will be better able to deal with it. Fewer things will be interpreted by you as ‘suffering’, and are more likely to be interpreted as a learning experience instead. You also become psychologically and spiritually more resilient. I can vouch for that, personally.

But why should there be suffering in existence in the first place? And why does it seem to be doled out so unfairly? Why couldn’t an omnipotent God create a suffering-free world in the first place?

To begin with, I would like to refer readers to my second post of 10 October 2012 ("A spiritual cosmology and the problem of evil"). This is my own working hypothesis, but who am I to know the mind of God?? I’m reminded of God’s answer to Job, in the book of the Old Testament Bible of the same name. Job is a good man, and yet God stands by while he loses everything, including his family, and suffers horrible illnesses, while his previous neighbours and friends come to the conclusion that he could not have been the good man that they had thought, to be suffering like this. In the end Job turns on God and demands “WHY?” God yells back “WHO ARE YOU TO QUESTION ME? Where you there when I created the world?” 

There are a number of eastern religions that are no more puzzled by the existence of suffering in a world where there is also joy, than they are at the fact there is dark as well as light. A single glance at the apparently infinite variety of creation might assure one that this is a universe which is exploring every conceivable possibility. The Buddha famously declared, as his ‘first truth’, that life IS suffering, and he searched hard to find a way to avoid being reborn into existence. Sufis (Muslim mystics) have been known to refer to this world as a ‘vale of suffering’, and both Kaballah and Sufi mystics tell tales of souls begging God not to be sent down to Earth to incarnate. But go they must.

Whatever’s going on, suffering seems to be essential to the process.  A few years ago there was a programme shown on TV called ‘Where was God during the Tsunami?’ which interviewed the priests, rabbis, imans etc. of various religions about why they thought God allowed suffering. I remember a Catholic priest saying that ‘God must have cried as he pushed the button to bring about creation’ because he knew the suffering that would ensue.

As well as there being stories within mystical traditions about less courageous souls not wanting to incarnate on Earth, there are also stories of souls who actually volunteer to enter into lives that will be full of suffering. There seems to be two reasons why they do this; firstly, to learn more quickly, and so make their way back up involution more quickly (again, see my second post on 10^th October) and, secondly, to ‘work off’ other people’s negative ‘karma’. 

The theory behind karma is that every action we take out of free will has consequences for the state of our soul. Some actions will make it lighter, so it advances back up the ladder to the Divine. Others will make it heavier, pulling it down into purgatory, and maybe even into a self- inflicted hell.  (Nobody gets sent to hell. We send ourselves there.) My husband particularly likes the theory about volunteering to undergo suffering in order to help others. Not only does it give his suffering meaning, but allows him to feel quite noble as well.

I desist from reminding him that his suffering might also be the result of misdeeds in past lives, which now need to be balanced up! Seriously, this particular theory is used in some societies as an excuse not to feel sorry for or even to help people who are suffering, or coping with desperate circumstances, and even to add to their suffering. I hardly need point out that this is not compassionate behaviour.

Christianity has a particularly interesting and rewarding take on suffering. Not only do Christians know that God experiences suffering, through becoming human Himself and suffering one of those most agonising deaths that can happen to a creature; but also that an inestimable amount of everyone’s karma was paid off as a result of His doing so, so we can all avoid hell if we so choose.

I hope I do not appear to be taking this subject too lightly to anyone undergoing suffering at the moment. To put it even more personally: as an endogenous depressive (I don’t need things outside of myself to make me depressed, I just don’t have enough serotonin to cope with everyday life) I have had prolonged episodes when I am terrified every time my husband or son leaves the house, in case they have an accident, and I never see them alive again.

You may consider this an unreasonable terror, but for me it was real, and almost unliveable with. I can appreciate the suffering of people who have good reason to fear they will never see a loved one again. Susan Jeffers wrote a book called ‘Feel the Fear and Do it Anyway’ in which she proposed that it’s not fear of actual suffering that frightens us, it’s the fear of not being able to cope with that suffering. Her book underlines the need for courage to live this life fully. In another of her books ‘End the Struggle and Dance with Life’ (where do they get these titles???) she suggests the following prayer that I have now incorporated into my everyday practice:

“Dear God, I trust that no matter what happens in my life, it is for my highest good. And no matter what happens in the lives of those I love, it is for their highest good. From all things that are put before us, we shall become stronger and more loving people. I am grateful for all the opportunity and beauty you put into my life. And in all that I do, I shall seek to be a channel for your love.”

Daily practice

There are those who can see some sense in what I’ve written in my first five posts, but who do not have time to read the books I’ve recommended in yesterday’s post, and who are more interested in what this means for them on a day to day basis, i.e. what action can be taken in their everyday lives.

Each tradition has very definite guidelines and ‘rules’ for this – the Ten Commandments, the Eightfold Path, and so on, but if it’s of any help, I have set out here the daily practice that I have evolved for myself, honed from many traditions. I would love to know what others are doing – please let me know.

First thing in the morning, - very first thing,-  I repeat the positive affirmation “I am loved, I am worthy, I am safe, I am free” several times, and then again whenever I remember to do so throughout the day.

Having affirmed this, first thing, the Christian’s Lord’s Prayer is a good set up for the day:

“Our heavenly parent (your ‘spiritual’ parents or, if you like, you at your most perfect level. The main thing about this entity to which you are praying, whether it be male or female, both or neither, is that it is wholly wise, understanding and compassionate, and has nothing but bottomless unconditional love for you. Don’t let any interlopers worm their way in here.)

Hallowed be Thy name (you intend to worship only that which is the begetter of the universe, with what that means, rather than any other person, thing, idea or ambition. I’ve kept the archaic language and capitalisation here because it lifts the prayer out of the ordinary mundane world.)

Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven (you are asking to be a channel for what God would like to be happening on Earth.)

Give us this day our daily bread (self- explanatory, plus you’re asking for what you need, rather than what you want, as we are often blind to the fact that if our wants were satisfied it would not always be in our own best interests.)

And forgive us for what we’ve done wrong, as we forgive those who’ve done us wrong (what goes around comes around. Anyway, holding on to a grudge weighs you down, psychologically and spiritually. This doesn’t mean that you mustn’t take loving compassionate action to try to ensure the wrong does not occur again – both those committed by you and by others against you.)

Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil (This is acknowledging that we can’t keep out of trouble without Divine/spiritual help, and that we’re also trusting that God knows what’s beyond us, and won’t push us beyond what we can cope with.)

For Thine is the Kingdom, the power and the glory (as it should be, lesser entities just mess these things up when they try to pretend this isn’t the way things are.)

Forever and ever. So be it”

It’s important that you concentrate hard on what you’re saying as you recite this prayer.

I then usually round off my morning ritual running through the list of divine qualities I want to be channelling that day e.g. wisdom, compassion, understanding, patience, generosity, peace; and specifically requesting Divine help with that.

I then put a mark on the back of my hand or choose a specific piece of jewellery that will regularly catch my eye throughout the day. When it does I do a quick review of how I have been ‘manifesting’ the qualities I chose that morning, and if there’s anything I need to do as a result of that review.

At some point during the day I meditate for 20 minutes. I happen to use the ‘GetSomeHeadspace’ application, but that does cost money. Plus there are loads of places on the net, and thousands of books that’ll tell you how to do it. Very many people claim that this is the most necessary activity on a spiritual quest. In my opinion, it does help to peel your ego away from your more authentic self, which it is often smothering. This enables your more authentic self (the one more in touch with your Divine origins) to get a handle on the caprices of your ego, and id, and superego come to that. Always remembering of course that all three of them (ego, id and superego) are only trying, within their limited means, to do their best for you. They make great servants but terrible masters.

Now I’m unemployed, I also devote some time to extra prayers and spiritual exercises and contemplations during the day. The ones I currently use are from ‘Open Mind, Open Heart’ and ‘What We May Be’ (see my last posting) and also from Tau Malachi’s books ‘Living Gnosis’ and ‘Gnosis of the Cosmic Christ’. These exercises in these last two books can also be found on the Sophian tradition website I mentioned in my last post.

I’ve found it very important to end the day with prayer as well. It’s a good idea to list all the things you’ve been grateful for that day (e.g. the roof over your head, the food you’ve eaten, the old friend who got back in touch), then to pray for others (both of these are actually for your own spiritual and psychological good) and, finally, to identify the issues and problems you are having trouble with, or are experiencing anxiety about (this is more for your own clarity, the Divine of course has no need to be told) and then, consciously turn them over to this Higher Power. It can see all sorts of angles and wrinkles and possible solutions that you can’t, will be thinking more in the longer term, and what would be good for others as well. I cannot tell you what a help this last prayer has been to me over the years.

If at any point during these rituals you begin to feel gratitude and awe – not an unusual occurrence – direct these feelings ‘upwards’ (spiritually) to whatever you’re envisioning as God, in order to share them. In religious parlance this is known as devotion, and can open all sorts of interesting doors.

As said earlier, I would love to know what others do.