The Buddha sits in meditation in a wood, accompanied by 500 enlightened monks.

The scene attracts the attention of many non - human beings; the Yakkhas; nature spirits, emerge from the trees, mountains and wilderness; the serpent like Nagas arise from the lakes and seas; the winged Garudas swoop and hover above; the mighty Kings of the four directions approach the gathering; even the terrifying Asuras say: “Now is the occasion, of the monks forest meeting.”; and the resplendent devas of water, earth, fire and wind, illuminate the wood in their many hues. All have come to pay homage to the Buddha and his monks. But not only earth bound beings have come - devata from 10 other world systems have also been drawn to pay there respects at the assembly. The Buddha welcomes and describes each class of being present.

This is from the Maha-Samaya Sutta; the ‘Discourse of the Great Assembly’, from the Pali canon; the oral tradition written down centuries after the death of the Buddha, recording his life and teachings.

The beings referred to are what we might today call the beings of Indian mythology - comparable to our own fairies, dragons, dryads, gods. Ancient Indian cosmology also included beings from other world-systems. (In the west, we would have to wait until science fiction provided us with stories relating to beings from other planets.)

As we can see, the Buddha has no problem acknowledging them and including them, even those that are usually harmful.

A Harmonious Mandala

I find it to be a beautiful and meaningful scene. For Buddhists, the Buddha is not simply a clever and ‘chilled out’ man but the principle of reality, which not only attracts the beings, but also arranges them into a harmonious mandala, just as iron filings are arranged by a magnet. 1

An important detail I like about this scene is how the winged Garudas and the Serpent like Nagas are traditionally enemies, as are the Asuras and Devas, but all enmities are held in suspension while the meeting is in place and they are in the presence of the Buddha. This points to a very important principle; the Buddha represents and embodies the transcendental order which is beyond the mundane sphere of existence, beyond all loyalties to religion, species, race etc, beyond even the gods. It is only around such a principle can all beings be held in a harmonious community.

In Buddhism, there is room for all the ‘pagan’ gods and beings, there is no need to ignore or banish anyone. No need to suppress the energies and forces that these beings represent, all of reality is integrated around the Buddha. Even the harmful and aggressive cannot help but be sub-ordinated to a higher power, a higher truth.

By the way, these non-human beings indigenous to India are rather incidental as far as the practice of Buddhism is concerned; which does not require us to make a decision as to their ontological status. It is best just to enjoy these stories as you might fairy tales, and allow them to speak to us, without worrying about whether they are ‘real’ or have ‘historicity’ or not - that is beside the point. I have no doubt, mind you, that the practice of Buddhism leads to a broader conception of the forms existense that may be taken than is typical of modernist assumptions.

The Radiant Ones

The beautiful devas mentioned, a word that is often translated as ‘gods’ may share a common ancestry with the Greek and Nordic gods, to which they share many characteristics. The devas were brought into India by the Indo-Aryan settlers from Europe, in the second millennium BCE. The word deva is related to the Latin ‘deus’, both descending from the same Proto-Indo-European root meaning “shining” or “heavenly one. In the Pali canon, the Buddha often teaches and confers with devas, and they often appear at significant moments, such as when the Buddha gives his first discourse.

The Buddha also comes into contact with the nagas. Nagas are serpent like beings, comparable in some ways to our dragons, in that they are often protectors of treasure or wisdom. But in the west we have tended to see dragons, purely as a malignant threat and killed them. In the garden of Eden, the serpent is a giver of wisdom, but a manifestation of the devil. But nagas are seen in Buddhism as mainly positive, if sometimes obstructive. Shortly after the Buddha’s enlightenment there was a great rainstorm; the naga king Mucalinda coiled round the Buddha seven times and sheltered him with his multi-headed hood.

There are several other discourses where the Buddha comes into contact with non-human beings. Sometimes they are very dangerous or threatening. On one occasion the Buddha has strayed into the territory of a fearsome Yakkha , a nature spirit, called Alavaka, who demands the Buddha leaves. When the Buddha refuses, Alavaka says he will ask him 3 questions. If the Buddha cannot answer them, he says he will drive him mad, tear out his heart, and throw him by his feet to the other side of the ocean!2 The Buddha responds by saying “I have not met anyone in the cosmos who can do that, but go ahead and ask your questions.” Alavaka is so impressed by the Buddha’s answers to his questions, he becomes a devotee.

These stories are typical of the way the Buddha interacted with such entities, and set a very different example to what we are used to in the west. If he came into contact with the Lincoln Imp (see part 1), he would probably contain his energy, be bigger than him, then give him a job to do. The disruptive energy represented by the Imp would be subordinated and put to good use, rather than cast down and alienated.

The limits of ‘Pagan’ Worship

Whilst the Buddha has a harmonious relationship with the forces of nature and the worship of these forces, he also recognises their limitations, that they are a part of the mundane world, subject to impermanence. The Buddha said:

Many people, out of fear, flee for refuge to (sacred) hills, woods, groves and shrines.
In reality this is not a safe refuge. In reality this is not the best refuge. Fleeing to such a refuge one is not released from all suffering. 3

Note that the translation says ‘not released from all suffering’ so its not that the Buddha thinks such worship is without virtue - and elsewhere he encourages people to continue observing traditional customs - it is helpful to be on good terms with all the natural forces around you - but ultimately nature is part of samsara, the mundane world, so you cannot ‘go for refuge’ to it.

‘Going for Refuge’ is Buddhist terminology for what we invest in, what we commit to. The defining act for a Buddhist is to go to refuge to the Three Jewels: The Buddha, The Dharma (the teaching of the Buddha or reality), and the Sangha (the community of those who have gained insight.) The three jewels are beyond the cycle of life and death, beyond the bonds of time and space, so can offer an infallible refuge.

This is what makes Buddhism a universal religion, one that is not bound by place, and so addresses itself to humankind, not simply to a particular tribe, not even a particular species or class of being, not even, as is shown in the above sutta, not even solely to the inhabitants of earth.

There is one final story of the Buddha I want to share that demonstrates how Buddhism assimilates the indigenous into the universal. The Buddha visits Baka Brahma, who is a high ranking deva. Because his life span is so long, and people pray to him, he has come to think of himself as eternal, that he has passed beyond life and death, and that he has created the universe. The Buddha explains to him that he is mistaken: that although his lifespan may be “A hundred thousand times a hundred million years…” it is in fact short, compared to a Buddha. Because Baka appeared at the beginning of a world cycle, he believes that he created those that came after, some of whom believed it too. The Buddha points out there is a ‘higher realm’ beyond even the highest heaven, which really is deathless and outside time. Considering the Gods of Christianity and Islam is very interesting in the light of this story, though the followers of those religions would no doubt find the comparison extremely impertinent.

King Ashoka

After the death (or Parinirvana) of the Buddha, Buddhism spread throughout (what we now call) India, and then throughout Asia. To what extent did it follow the Buddhas example as it came into contact with indigenous belief systems?

Emperor Ashoka (304 - 232 BCE) was the third in line, following his grandfather and father, of the Mauryan dynasty, which was the first kingdom to spread over the sub-continent of India. Ashoka is notable, not just in India but world history, for turning his back on aggressive expansion and bloodshed, after being horrified by the violence of war. He converted to Buddhism and worked to spread the Dharma. What we know about him comes from pillars dotted around his empire with edicts inscribed on them, many of which still survive. These edicts attest to the tolerance of other religions Ashoka demonstrated. For example in Major Edict XII:

One should not honor only one’s own religion and condemn the religions of others, but one should honor others’ religions for this or that reason. By so doing, one helps one’s own religion to grow and renders service to the religions of others. In acting otherwise, one digs the grave of one’s own religion and also does harm to other religions

In another edict, he condemns the ritual sacrifice of animals, a practice common in indigenous religions all over the world, showing that while he respected indigenous religions he was willing to restrict practices that conflicted with the Buddhist principle of non-harm.

Padmasambhava

The semi mythical, semi-historical Padmasambhava, sometimes referred to as the second Buddha, must be the most famous and celebrated example of Buddhism coming into contact with indigenous forces and spirits.

The story goes that in the 8th century the King of Tibet, invited Santarakshita from India. The King wanted him to found the first Buddhist monastery in Tibet. Santarakshita was a very knowledgeable and capable monk, but was having great trouble establishing the monastery. The monastery would be built up in the day, only for demons to come out at night and tear their work down. Getting nowhere, Santarakshita knew that something more than he was capable of was needed. He called on the great Tantric Guru Padmasambhava for help…

Whereas Santarakshitas approach was rational - trying to establish Buddhism in Tibet with intellectual teachings, Padmasambhava’s approach was esoteric and mystical. Padmasambhava didn’t go straight to the capital, he did some ground work first - he travelled round Tibet, staying at cremation grounds. At night, when the spirits and demons of Tibet came out, Padmasambhava would not shrink, but meet them head on, overcome them, convert them and initiate them. They are bound by oath and become protectors of the Dharma. Having tamed the local spirits and god, the forces of nature and the ‘irrational’ the building of the monastery could go ahead:

"By day, the men of flesh and blood were working on the building; by night, the gods and raksasas of the eight classes were raising the edifice." 4

More historically speaking, the stories of Padmasambhava subduing the demons are often understood as symbolizing the establishment of Buddhism in Tibet and the incorporation of indigenous beliefs and deities into the new religion. They may also reflect the resistance of followers of older religious traditions, including Bon,- the shamanistic, indigenous religion of Tibet - as Buddhism gained royal patronage. Over the following centuries, Bon and Buddhism experienced periods of rivalry and competition, while also influencing one another and, for the most part, coexisting side by side.

Spreading through Asia

Just as Christianity spread throughout Europe, Buddhism, also a universal religion spread throughout Asia, But unlike Christianity, it found a place for the indigenous gods and beliefs, assimilating them into itself, whilst offering a ideal which transcended place, time and culture. Shintoism in Japan, Daoism and Confusianism in China, Nats in Burma, could all exist alongside Buddhism, whilst also leaving their mark on Buddhist practice in those countries.

So Buddhism is able to respect different cultures and beliefs with which it comes into contact, integrate with them, and add something to them. Overall I think it deserves its reputation as being a tolerant and peaceful religion, compared to other world religions such as Christianity and Islam. This is not because Buddhists are better people than those of other religions of course - but that the ethical framework of Buddhism makes it harder to justify aggressive expansionism.

This is a testament to the example of its founder, and also the metaphysical implications of his teaching, that go beyond even the subtlest duality, and therefore can serve as a basis of being a truly Universal religion.

Inside lurks a cloven hooved creature with a wicked grin on his face and horns on his head….

The creature in question is a twelve inch grotesque that can be seen in the Angel Choir part of the Cathedral, who has come to be known as ‘The Lincoln Imp’. There is an old legend that tells how he came to be there. The Devil had sent him out to play and cause havoc. He was blown to Lincoln Cathedral, where he thoroughly misbehaved himself; tripping up clergy, throwing stones and books and causing chaos. An Angel decided to deal with him. She ordered him to stop, but when he carried on she said “Sit there forever!” and turned him to stone, where he still sits today.

The imp was to have the last laugh, however…

The Daimonic

This is only a fun little legend, but it does perhaps demonstrate early Christian attitudes towards what we might call the demonic or the pagan1, which is what the Imp represents….

The word for demon comes from the Greek word daimon. To the ancient Greeks a daimon was an intermediary between the mortals and gods, and actually had very positive associations. Three of the greatest Greek philosophers regarded daimons in different ways. Socrates had a daimon that would tell him what not to do. Plato believed our daimon would guide us if we listened to it, helping us live out our life’s purpose. Aristotle considered Eu-daimon-ia - which is sometimes translated as ‘human flourishing’ but also ‘having a good daimon’ - to be the greatest good.

When Christianity came to the fore, however, the meaning of the word Daimon was to change. Christianity went from one belief system among many, to the religion of the Roman Empire in 380CE. As it largely suppressed any belief system that did not conform to its worldview. The worship of any other than the Christian god was considered heathen idolatry. The word Daimon became Demon and lost any positive connotation, and came to mean something associated with the Devil, in fact it condemned any ‘spiritual beings except its own god and his servants as demons.’2

Converting to Christianity

Christendom began outlawing paganism. The 1st Commandment is: “Thous shalt have no other gods before me”. Europe had been polytheistic, but largely turned its back on the multitude of deities when it converted to Christianity.

Europe had also been rife with all sorts of ‘daimonic’ beings; nature spirits, fairies, household spirits, nymphs, as all traditional cultures had, but these were banished or ignored, and retreated off to the shadows…

St. Martin of Tours (316/336 - 397) was an ex soldier and early convert to Christianity. He was known for his compassion, using his sword to cut a cloak in half for a beggar. When he became Bishop of Tours in France, he also became known for destroying Pagan temples and monuments. According to the legend, after destroying a temple in one village, he was about to cut down the sacred tree, to which the villagers objected. Martin offered to stand in the direction of the falling tree, which the villagers agreed to, and when the falling tree miraculously missed him, the villagers were so impressed they converted.

According to Patrick Harpur: “The chief offence of the daimons was their intermediacy. All pagans recognized a multitude of daimons which mediated between them and their many gods. But for Christianity there can only be one mediator between mankind and the one God: Jesus Christ.”3

In 596 Augustine was sent by Pope Gregory 1 to convert the Anglo Saxons, who were a polytheistic culture. It only took about a hundred years before most of Britain was Christian.

In Britain in the 11th Century King Cnut (reigned 1016–1035) issued laws prohibiting ‘heathenism’:

"We earnestly forbid every heathen practice: heathen worship, worship of idols, the sun or moon, fire or rivers, water-wells or stones, or forest trees of any kind, or the practice of witchcraft, divination, or enchantments..." 4

It is debated among historians how much of this type of worship and practice was still actually happening in Britain then, but it is fascinating that this sort of thing was outlawed.

By the time the Lincoln Imp took his seat, in the 13th century, Christianity had been dominant in Britain for centuries, as the magnificent catherdrals that were constructed attest to.

Universal Religions and Ethnic Religions

I have sometimes wondered what made Christianity so appealing that it was so successful in converting all of Europe. Of course there are political reasons, but what were the ‘spiritual’ reasons? The story of Christianity displacing Paganism is that of a world religion, or universal religion displacing an ethnic or indigenous religion.

Indigenous religions tend to be tribal, they don’t have a single founder and you can’t really transplant an indigenous religion - it is bound to a certain place and landscape, its members are generally born into it, they do not tend to go out looking for new members. Indigenous religions include Judaism, Hinduism, and the Pagan religions of Europe before Christianity.

A world religion has a founder, they are not bound to a certain place or people - it addresses itself to all people everywhere, they tend to spread and seek new members; they are proselytizing, you cannot really be born into a universal religion- it has to be a matter of an individual choice. Universal religions include Christianity, Buddhism and Islam.

World religions sometimes have features of Ethnic religions and vice versa.

Universal religions have a ‘transcendental’ dimension to them - represented by God in the case of Christianity and Islam, or the Buddha in Buddhism, which represent an ultimate reality. Indigenous religions tend to lack this dimension, and humanity is seen as belonging to nature, without the ‘higher destiny’ that universal religions consider humans as having.

Universal religions like Christianity also tend to emphasize compassion. There is a great emphasis in Christianity in charity and helping the downtrodden, that tended not to be found in indigenous religions. In his book ‘Dominion’ the historian Tom Holland makes a good case for the moral framework Christianity introduced to Europe, viewing slavery and torture as repugnant, as each person equal before God.

Buddhism is different to the semitic religions, however, is that it more harmoniously integrates paganism, nature worship into itself, whereas for the most part Christianity and Islam has a much more antagonistic relationship to them.

Why we need our Pagan roots

So, while Christianity absorbed some pagan attitudes and practices into itself, it largely rejected and suppressed the pagan worldview. The relationship between Christianity and Paganism has been, and continues to this day, to be a fractious one.

Sangharakshita compares the situation in any Christian country as being like ‘a flower without roots, a flower in a glass of water, even an artificial flower, because continuity with the past, with our own religious past has been lost…A site like Stonehenge is very impressive…but we don’t necessarily feel any real continuity with the religious and cultural life of the people who put those great stones there.” This is at variance to India, he says, where Modern Hindus “…can feel their continuity with the Vedic rishis living hundreds, even thousands of years before Christ.”5

Because the pre-roman Britons didn’t leave any written records, and neither did the Anglo-Saxons, what pre-Christian spiritual life looked like in Britain is something we need to piece together from archaeology and speculation, the living connection has largely been lost.

The reformation and counter-reformation, further stripped away vestiges of pre-christian culture which had been preserved in Christianity. While modernism deadened any sense of ourselves as being spiritual beings whatsoever (as we will explore in part 3).

So why does it matter if this is the case?

The Roots of Identity

There is a deep psychological need for people to feel rooted, there is something nourishing about it. It gives a sense of place and identity. In the ‘Global village’ of the modern world we live in, there is an increasing sense of ‘deracination’ a sense of dislocation from our past and identity. The past does not define us, and we are not obliged to go along with the way our ancestors or fellow countrymen behave or what they believe. Nor does it mean we should be confined to our ‘country of origin’ but rather if one wants to live a life of depth, such matters need to be considered. We are not ‘fungible’ units, who can be displaced without repercussions. Displacement has cultural, psychological and spiritual consequences, and we disregard these matters at our peril.

For this reason, Sangharakshita suggested that to be Buddhist we need to be pagan first - that is we need to establish healthy connections with those parts of ourselves that are connected with nature, our cultural history and even our biological inheritance.

Living a Holy Life

It is very difficult to unpick the extent to which Christianity integrated paganism, versus the extent it eradicated it, but it is clear that it stamped its worldview over europe - that of life as a battle between good and evil, dividing supernormal beings into angels and demons, leaving no room for the ambiguity of polytheism.

Christianity may have been a civilising influence in many respects, but its also been a narrowing one on the western imagination.

The gods, nature spirits, daimons, fairies that have existed in some form in all traditional cultures, represent an important part of us, and important part of ‘reality’ that we cannot ignore or cut away from ourselves without doing our selves harm. Indeed they will not be completely done away with- they have continues to exist on the fringes - sometimes adapting to modern conditions and appearing in new forms. (The most convincing explanation for the mysterious UFO phenomenon is that they are modern daimons appearing in a highly technological form.)

Jungians will tend to explain the Daimonic by psychologising it, but I do not think that they can quite be neatly explained away as being ‘all in the mind’ either. They seem to exist liminally, in between ‘real’ and ‘unreal’. John Vervaeke has coined the term ‘transjective’ which seems to fit the bill well - a category in between subjective and objective- they are not quite completly ‘out there’ or ‘in here’ either.

Us ‘children of modernism’ have a hard time thinking in ‘transjective’ ways, but it is seemingly how traditional cultures thought, its how people of the Buddha’s time thought - as is attested to in the Pali canon, where ‘transjective’ beings come and go and form part of their reality, (as we will see in the next part) which is a much holier, as in the etymological root of the word holy as ‘whole’, way of living.

Patrick Harpur says: “We too can enter into this reality by thinking in a traditional way. Except that for us it is not thinking so much as imagining.”

The richness and variety found in the Greek pantheon offers a spectrum of beings that seems to do greater justice to the complexity of the human psyche than the relatively spare cosmology of Christianity. Perhaps this helps explain why the rediscovery of classical texts in the Renaissance proved so creatively liberating. Ancient mythology returned to European artists and writers providing an extraordinarily rich symbolic vocabulary with which to explore every shade of human experience.

CS Lewis and Tolkien, seem to recognise in their work the need for including paganism within the Christian myth. Lewis’ Narnia books attempts to redress this balance, make room for the daimonic or pagan within a Christian mythic framework. In ‘Prince Caspian’ Aslan, Jesus in lion form, awakens the Dryads, Naiads and other woodland beings, and even the wild god Bacchus (Dionysus) himself, who in service to Aslan help restore Narnia. This seems to be a much more wholesome version of Christianity and closer to a more Buddhist attitude to the pagan, (as we will see in part 2). More subtly, something similar can be seen in his friend Tolkien, who considered Lord of the Rings ‘fundamentally religios and Catholic work’, without referencing it at all directly. With his Elves, Ents, Wizards it is plain to see Tolkien’s love for the Pagan, and the need to include it.

I don’t want to make Paganism out to be some idealised thing. Although it doesn’t all belong in the same demonic category it has been put in by orthodox Christianity, I think much of paganism, both modern and ancient is potentially dangerous. Interestingly, in Prince Caspian, Susan says: "I wouldn't have felt safe with Bacchus and all his wild girls if we'd met them without Aslan." I imagine that the fear is not simply that Bacchus and his wild girls would harm Susan exactly, but without the presense of a higher power they would more likely seduce her, a danger perhaps present in the modern world…(see part 3 coming soon)

The Lincoln Imp Unleashed

All this time, through the late middle ages, the Reformation, the Scientific revolution the Lincoln Imp has been sitting up in his alcove, waiting, forced to listen to hymns in the angel choir of the catherdral. He has become the symbol for the city of Lincoln, even the county of Lincolnshire. The city’s professional football team are nicknamed the ‘Lincoln Imps’, the Cathedral itself sells fridge magnets, children’s books, statues of the Imp. In 2021 to celebrate the 500th anniversary of Magna Carta (one of the copies of which is kept in the Castle) thirty five foot handpainted Imps were dotted around the city for children to find. The saints and angels depicted around the cathedral barely get a look-in by comparison. Today, Lincolnshire County Councils’ logo features a green logo of the Imp dancing with the tagline “Working for a Better Future.”

Its impossible to know what the sculptors who made the Imp all those years ago a had in mind when they included him, but surely they can’t have imagined this!

What does it mean that a spawn of the devil has become the most recognisable symbol for the third largest county in Britain? Perhaps it means, these days, christians have a more enlightened attitude towards the pagan, the demonic. Perhaps its evidence that the energies that the ‘demonic’ represents can never fully be destroyed, and are always waiting for a chance to express themselves. Whatever the reason, its nice to think of him working locally for the county council, filling potholes, making sure the rubbish gets collected and so on.

In the next part we’ll look at the interplay of Buddhism and Paganism.

Trapped in lives they did not really want, with a vague sense that surely there must be more to all this—and more to themselves. Burdened by habit, too cynical to imagine something better, too jaded to try anything new.

Unfulfilled lives are often to do with a poverty of vision. I have had my share of that quiet desperation, but have also stumbled into other possibilities...

A Taste of a ‘New Society’...

As a young man in my twenties, I started attending classes, courses and retreats, making friends at the London Buddhist Centre in Bethnal Green. I loved it. But I thought of it as a hobby, something I could do at the weekends, and nothing more than that. When I was lucky enough to lose my job, however, I went and worked at one of the cafes run as a Buddhist business, connected to the centre. Working there alongside Buddhists made all the difference; I began to catch something of the adventure of it all. I saw how this was an attempt to create a different culture. It wasn’t long before I moved into a community. I soon realised that this could be what I did with my life, rather than an ‘add-on’.

Sangharakshita’s Vision

I had found myself in the ‘Buddhist Village’ as it was called, which consisted of several communities, as well as two Buddhist-run cafes, a gift shop, a second-hand bookshop, a second-hand clothes shop, an organic food shop, an arts centre, and of course at its heart, the Buddhist Centre itself. I had not, up to that point, experienced such a sense of community based on shared values. I had stumbled into what was known in Triratna circles as ‘The Nucleus of a New Society’, a term which came from a series of talks given in 1976 by the founder of the movement, Sangharakshita.

Sangharakshita had founded Triratna in 1967. He had returned to Britain from India, where he had lived for 20 years, becoming a monk and immersing himself in learning and teaching Buddhism. He had been invited back by the small Buddhist establishment in England. The relationship didn’t work out, however, and when he was disinvited from the English Sangha Trust, he saw the opportunity to found a new Buddhist movement. He had come across Buddhist organisations, both in India and England, which were run by people who weren’t committed Buddhists, who didn’t realise the radical possibilities Buddhism offered. He knew that at the heart of this movement would be an Order, made up of people who had made a commitment to the Dharma central to their lives. The Order would also be neither monastic nor lay, with ‘commitment as primary, lifestyle secondary’.

Despite these principles, he didn’t have a complete vision of what the movement would become, how it would manifest. One of Sangharakshita’s aphorisms is: “You learn what you are doing in the process of doing it**,**” and this was very much the case here.

Over the next few years, he attracted a number of young men and women who would learn meditation and the principles of Buddhism. This was the sixties and seventies, a time of great social change, and people were ready to try new things. In going on retreat together, these youngsters discovered that when in the right conditions—in the natural beauty of the countryside, practising meditation, puja (Buddhist ritual), and learning the principles of Buddhism—unseen vistas and possibilities in themselves and between each other would reveal themselves.

When they got home, they were sorry to part, and wanted to continue living together. In this way, communities began to form.

Naturally they also wanted to work together—it being an area where so much time and energy was spent, often misspent, in meaningless drudgery with people who didn’t share their values. Why not also integrate work into one’s Buddhist life? Businesses began to spring up as well.

By 1976, after nearly a decade of these experiments, a vision began to crystallise for Sangharakshita, and he gave a series of four talks themed ‘Buddhism for Today and Tomorrow’. These talks were called

• ‘A Method of Personal Development’,

• ‘A Vision of Existence’,

• ‘The Nucleus of a New Society’

• ‘Blueprint for a New World’

These talks laid out a vision of an ‘economic and social network, built up in order to provide the best conditions for human growth.’1

Around the time of these talks, enthusiasm and idealism were high, even a sense of history - Buddhism was coming to the West and anything was possible. Things moved very quickly – the three ‘C’s; Centres, Communities and Co-Operatives (businesses) sprang up in different parts in the world, and it was possible for some to take part in each of these three, to live in a ‘world within a world’.

An incredibly successful example of a ‘Co-Operative’ or Team-Based Right Livlihood, was Windhorse Trading, founded in 1980. Starting as a market stall selling giftware imported from India, it became a large business which by 1997 was employing 190 Buddhists with a turnover of £10 million. Profits from the business went to buying new buildings for centres in several cities around the UK. Buddhists came from different countries to experience life in a Buddhist-run business, and train for ordination. There were Evolution shops in many cities England.

Perhaps in no better place has this vision been lived out than in Bethnal Green around the the old fire station converted into a Buddhist Centre, which opened in 1978 - incidentally the year I was born. In the early 2000s, as well as reading about this vision as laid out in these talks from 1976, I was also having a taste of it. Having not had a great experience of work and house-sharing in London before that, feeling a bit battered and bruised from the experience, I felt I had escaped the ‘rat race’. I was making lifelong friends, meeting people from all over the Triratna world, growing personally and having a great time. My own sense of freedom and growth, coincided with a feeling that I was contributing to something, was part of something, that was having a good impact on the world. I didn’t feel like like I was being a ‘good person’ or ‘making a difference’ - a phrase I dislike - it was just that my personal growth and enjoyment coincided with being part of and contributing to a community.

Not a Political Theory

Despite using terms like ‘Co-Operatives’ and “Give what you can, take what you need” similar to the Marxist creed “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”, the vision behind a New Society is in no sense political. There is no plan to overthrow governments or seize power, the use of power in terms of forcing or coercing people to do things against their will being anathema to the spirit of Buddhism. There isn’t a political wing to the movement. It’s more like friends coming together, inspired by the Dharma with the idea “Wouldn’t it be great to live together.” or “Wouldn’t it be great to work together.” thereby integrating home life and work life into Buddhist practice, creating a culture based on shared Buddhist values and mutual support.

A Pure Land

There is also a deeper, more mythic relevance for this community. Its real name is not the ‘London Buddhist Centre’, but Sukhavati (the Land of Bliss). Sukhavati is a timeless, blissful Buddhist realm where the conditions are perfect for practising Buddhism. This realm is presided over by the Buddha Amitabha, who sits in the main shrine room of the London Buddhist Centre.

So on one level, we have the London Buddhist Centre as a registered Charity, with a collection of employees, and associated propeties that are rented out, as a legal entity. But on a deeper, more imaginative, in a sense truer reality, it is an attempt to realise Sukhavati, a Pure land where everything is a meaningful expression of ultimate reality. This is living a ‘holy’ life; in that the etymology of holy is linked to ‘whole’—one’s whole life is connected up to one’s highest values, and, to my mind, represents the most fulfilling and meaningful way to live.

This need not only be limited to those who live and work there, but all who contribute and come into contact with Sukhavati. I have seen this played out with the London Buddhist Centre; not everyone is able to, or wants to live in a community, or work in a Buddhist business, but they can nevertheless benefit from and take part in the community, take part in the myth.

With this mythic dimension in mind, one’s life is enveloped in a deeper meaning, one’s everyday actions, seemingly mundane and administrative, are really contributing to the creation of a ‘pure land’. There is a correspondence with one’s everyday life with the transcendental. “As above, so below.” This is the most fulfilling way to live, to my mind.

The Shadow of the ‘New Society’

Living in community, working at the centre I soon started training for ordination - I had dived in head-first. Some of my family and friends understandably worried I had been snared by a cult, but I knew that this was nothing of the sort, there was never any pressure on me to do anything I didn’t want to and I was free to leave when I wanted.

But little did I know, I was coming to the party a bit late. In the community as a whole, enthusiasm in those talks given twenty-five years or so ago, was beginning to dwindle. Many of the first wave of Order members who had set up the communities and businesses were now older, and some had lost their radical idealism, and didn’t want to live in shared rooms in communities anymore, or work for ‘support’ in TBRLs. That and changing economic and cultural factors meant some businneses and communities closed. A Guardian article which criticised Sangharakshitas sex life had sent waves through the movement, and the certainty about the ‘New Society’ had begun to dwindle.

Another factor was perhaps what had happened at the Croydon Centre. It had been one of the leading lights in the community - an exciting example of what was possible - it had a hugely successful centre, restaurant and arts centre. But it was spearheaded by a charismatic order member who’s motives were not pure. There was a culture of bullying and pressure to conform. The situation has become a cautionary tale in the movement of when idealism tips over into something else.

One way or another, the optimism and radicalism of the sixties and seventies faded somewhat, and many of the businesses closed- including Windhorse, which closed in 2010. People stopped talking so much about the New Society…

The ‘New Society’ Today

I’ve heard people say that the vision of a ‘New Society’ has had its day — that it belongs to another era, a relic of a more idealistic or naïve time. I don’t agree.

There is also a growing sense today that something has gone badly wrong in Western civilisation. Many people point to the loss of any deeper vision of life — the increasing secularism that leaves us materially comfortable perhaps, but spiritually disoriented. As the Biblical proverb says: “Where there is no vision, the people perish.”

The needs that the ‘New Society’ responds to have not disappeared. If anything, they have become more urgent. Human beings still need friendship, meaning, inspiration, and a way of living that supports our deepest aspirations - and most of all, a spiritual dimension to life, a connection with something transcendental.

When I was younger, I think I imagined that the New Society would eventually take over the world. It seemed so obvious to me that it made sense — surely once people heard about it they would want to join in! With time I have learned that it doesn’t quite work like that. In a seminar, Sangharakshita once remarked that there is “no final victory for the New Society.” Samsara2 goes round and round without end. Perhaps only a handful of people in each generation manage to ascend the spiral path and escape it altogether. Buddhism simply isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. People are very different; some people will throw themselves into the Dharma with their whole lives. Others may practise it seriously alongside the other commitments of life. Some may connect with it more lightly — dropping in from time to time. And many people will not feel drawn to it at all.

At its heart, the New Society runs on two things: inspiration in the Dharma and friendship. Whenever those conditions are present, the possibility of the New Society is alive — and the possibility that some magic might happen.

We need a way to re-enchant the world, without regressing to childhood, in a way that satisfies our intellect as well as our emotions. We need practices which, if followed with an open mind, can easily give us a glimpse of a more sacred world. And isn’t that the kind of world you want to live in? – a sacred world? Don’t you want there to be something sacred in life? Don’t you want something in your life that makes you want to get down on your knees and devote yourself to, to make you thankful to exist?

This is the world the Buddha woke up to. A world of gratitude and devotion. He decided to live in reverence to the Dharma – reality, that which had allowed him to attain the blissful state of Enlightenment. It’s comforting to think that reality is something which we can revere – it is not innately hostile or even neutral, rather something that is really very good, when we fully open our eyes to it.

I can’t say I wake up every morning, get down on my knees full of devotion, gratitude and reverence and praise the universe. I’m lucky if I can muster any serious devotion more than once or twice a year! Most mornings I wake up with a mild sense of dread, hoping nothing goes badly wrong today… Nevertheless, I feel I’ve experienced it enough to know that this is the trajectory I need to head in; when I am oriented in this direction I’m at my best and most fulfilled. I sense that the final destination in this course is a state of freedom – in which there is no separation between self and others, no fear of death, no absence of magic.

Reality Personified

It’s hard to be devotional to the idea of reality in the abstract, to hold a set of metaphysical statements and assertions sacred. This is why, in the Buddhist tradition, reality is most often communicated in the form of magnificent, enlightened beings which are synonymous with reality. It is much more natural for us to be devotional to personifications of the attributes of enlightenment.

There are numerous such beings in the Buddhist tradition. They manifest in a variety of colours, wield symbolic objects, display meaningful hand gestures and are associated with a myriad of symbols, mantras, myths and stories. Some have their basis in history, some are completely mythical. When we are able to ‘see’ and experience these beings, they communicate something to us – more directly than words and concepts can.

Green Tara

One such being is Green Tara. There are a couple of origin stories for her; one is that Avalokiteśvara, the ‘Lord who looks down with Compassion’, was surveying all the world, witnessing the suffering endured by its inhabitants – he cried, and his tears formed a lake, out of which a blue lotus appeared, which opened to reveal the radiant green figure of Tara. So she is born out of compassion for the world.

Her name translates as ‘Star’ and, like a star, she guides us across the treacherous ocean of Saṃsāra (Saṃsāra being the mundane world, the endless cycle of life and death through which we are wandering). One arm she holds down, palm forwards, in the gesture of generosity; one up, palm outwards, in the gesture of fearlessness. In each hand she holds an utpala – a blue lotus. She is emerald green in colour.

So she is mainly known for her compassion. Compassion is when love meets suffering. The word for compassion in Buddhism is karuṇā. We all have experienced karuṇā; there will have been times we can think of when we have suffered and someone has noticed and been kind to us, done something to help us, and there are times when we have noticed suffering and done something to help others. Tara springs from that experience – that’s what she is, what she represents: the active urge to help people in whatever way we can.

Tara is shown with one leg in meditation posture, one leg hanging below her, as if she is stepping down. The leg stepping down represents her responding to the cries of the world, while her other foot, which remains up, represents her being rooted in reality, so her activity in the world is wise as well as compassionate. Whilst in the midst of the world she can never be overwhelmed by it, being constantly in touch with protecting sources of inspiration and energy.

She is known as the Swift One; she doesn’t hang about. When you call on Tara she responds as quick as the wind, no questions asked, like a mother responding to the needs of her child.

These are just some of the connections and symbols associated with her.

Green Tara came to be known around the 7th century CE in India. No one person came up with Green Tara. No focus group sat down together and decided a green, female Bodhisattva was needed. Rather, she bubbled up from people’s experience of compassion, and she has stood the test of time, coming down to us through the centuries. I think that means she can be trusted; you can trust that she speaks to something very elemental in the human experience, something greater than probably any of us could come up with individually, which is part of the importance of tradition – it’s not just made-up stuff.

In getting to know Tara, reflecting on her attributes, meditating on her, you can come to embody the realities encoded in her. People report ‘meeting’ Green Tara, and describe having experiences that suggest she is an objectively existing being on another plane, as they do with other Bodhisattvas and Buddha figures. This begs the question - are we to think of Green tara as ‘real’? Or is she a useful fiction, that we imaginitively turn to, to change our state of mind?

Trying to answer this question leads us to some interesting places, and also to the heart of Buddhist wisdom.

Our central delusion, according to Buddhist wisdom, is that we believe ourselves to exist independently from the world – we think there is ‘me’ and then there is ‘the world out there’. This mistaken belief leads to all our trouble, because we are so invested in this mirage that when anything threatens it, we become stressed, fearful, angry, unhappy. When we embark on Buddhist practice, we embark on a process of undoing this delusion. The Buddhas and Bodhisattvas – such as Green Tara – represent the end of that process, because when we let go of this delusion we are freed from the accompanying greed, hatred and delusion, our true nature is unleashed, from which compassion and fearlessness flow.

The Buddhas and Bodhisattvas hover between the real and the unreal, teaching us that this is the nature of all things — including ourselves. When we begin to see in this way, the world is no longer flat or disenchanted, but a place of genuine mystery, meaning and magic.

There is a myth that in a time of great need King Arthur will return;

“And the Britons believe yet that he liveth in Avalon with the fairest of all elves;
and that he shall come again to help his people.”1

In evoking the symbol of the King, I address the problems of our age in archetypal, mythic terms - archetypes and symbolic images reach deeper into us than any political theory - and the archetype of the King is a very primal archetype.

The Return of the King is a motif which occurs in cultures all over the world; what or who is the King and what does his return represent, and how does the King archetype appear in Buddhism?

Who is the King?

The King I am talking about here is not so much the hereditary king- not our King Charles III - bless him. I’m not talking about the despotic, tyrannical king either. The King I’m talking about is the archetypal, positive King- which we can relate to as a template for a mature individual, or as a more general principle around which we can collectively arrange ourselves.

As an individual, the positive King Archetype is a mature man of the world who is kind and wise, who has made some of himself through his own efforts, who has experienced the different echelons of society. He is a leader- not from a desire to have power over people, or because of the need to prove anything - but because he is trusted and respected through his actions and achievements and because of this naturally rises to the top of the hierarchy.

The King is one of the four Jungian masculine archetypes - as identified by Moore and Gillette’s in their useful book.2 In it they describe the King as also embodying the other three archetypes: a great magician, warrior and lover; I won’t explain these archetypes here, but put simply so he’s a very well rounded individual.

If seen in more collective terms, the King can be seen as the establishment of shared values through which we create laws and institutions which allow the realm to flourish; a collective spirit we can all contribute to and be proud of.

The Absent King

The king represents many qualities which are somewhat unfashionable in the world today, and so is to a large part absent in the world. These qualities include: positive masculinity and leadership.

The King as a Masculine Archetype

The King is of course a masculine archetype. I don’t think this is without relevance to the revival western society needs. It seems to me that masculinity, and all it represents, has been out of fashion for a while, while society has become more feminised. By masculine I do not mean male- both men and women have both masculine and feminine within them - women can embody the King archetype as well - though of course males are more likely to tend towards the masculine by temperament and biology.

It seems to me that the balance in western culture has shifted much more towards the feminine and this has had ramifications that are not all positive. Just as there is a shadow side to masculinity, so there is to femininity. It is revealing to me that we often hear ‘toxic masculinity’ talked about- and we can well identity what it is and know it to be thoroughly unpleasant - over aggressiveness, insensitivity, domination and so - while ‘toxic-femininity’ - is hardly ever mentioned. I suggest toxic femininity includes emotional manipulation, sentimentality and a preference for harmony over truth - it is less obvious and more insidious than toxic-masculinity - but in it's own way just as harmful. It often comes in the guise of compassion but is really anything but.

I tend to think toxic femininity finds its expression more in left wing politics and culture than right - in an over-censoriousness, cancel/shaming culture, big state, open borders. I think in recent decades anything mildly conservative has been demonised - to the point where some in the left will label anything right of centre ‘fascist’ or ‘nazi’ and so on….

Reading this you might consider me to be a conservative, or right wing. I don’t consider myself to be either of those things - for me, a Buddhists’ political views should be contingent rather than absolute, so I strive not to identify with any political group. I think it is important to distinguish political views from the Buddhism. I am merely pointing out an imbalance that I believe has come about.

Leadership

The King, because he’s associated with order, and drawing and maintaining boundaries is also an embodiment of leadership, so the absence of the King represents a lack of good leadership. King Arthur had his round table with whom he would deliberate with but he made the decisions in the end. The Buddha, a supreme example of Kingly qualities was very much the leader of the Sangha - and was not shy of drawing moral boundaries especially with regards to the order of monks - with whom he would expect the highest moral standards. If they did not live up to them he would not hesitate in giving them a dressing down or even expelling them.

Archetypally- there is a creative tension between the King and the Lover - the King represents order, stability and boundaries- whereas the Lover represents experimentation, spontaneity and connection - so the two principles are somewhat at odds. The good, wise King recognises, however, that for the realm to flourish, as well as having stability and order, it also needs a degree of aliveness and creativity so his rule does not become rigid and lifeless. If the Lover is allowed to rule, however, the realm falls into chaos, as there is no-one to draw boundaries; the Lover has no time for boundaries. I believe we see this in the world today, with regards the highly charged topic of mass immigration. While no doubt the impulse behind this is compassionate, without structure and discernment it leads to social fragmentation.

The spirit of the age is ‘inclusion’ - but many do not understand that to ‘include’ by definition to ‘exclude’ the two must go together or 'the word ‘inclusion’ is meaningless.

One of the roles of leadership is to provide vision - a vision of a society and where its going. Without vision there is nothing to determine the basis on which boundaries are drawn - ultimately for the King, that vision is derived from the transcendental…

In Service of the Transcendental

The positive, archetypal King is always in service of a higher power - and brings order and into his community based on his contact with this higher power. We see this with King Arthur and Merlin - who guides and advises him, acting as a link to the magical and spiritual. We still see the remnants of it today - at least symbolically - in how the King is anointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The King as represented in Buddhism is often presented in this role. The Buddha himself was often in contact with Kings around India, which at the time of the Buddha was a patchwork of kingdoms. The Buddha would give them advice on how they could run a just kingdom that would thrive. Sometimes the kings would take his advice, sometimes they wouldn’t - very much like Merlin and King Arthur. According to Sangharakshita, the wheel turning king- that is the king who rules according to Buddhist principles, is ‘is ranked second only to the Buddha’ and his principal function is to create and maintain a society of good ethical conduct- the basis for a spiritual community.

In the Sutra of Golden Light - a famous Mahayana Sutra, we meet the 4 Great Kings. A Mahayana Sutra is not so much a text, as a world you enter into. Including a cast of buddhas, monks and humans - but also a host of mythical beings. In this particular Sutra, the beings arrange themselves, mandala like, around the ‘Golden Light’ of the title of the Sutra. The Four Great Kings- one for each quarter of the universe - dedicate themselves to the Golden Light - which symbolises what is sometimes called the ‘Transcendental’.

In his commentary on the Sutra3, Sangharakshita describes the 4 Kings as the forces which bring about balance and harmony in the world. What he draws out from the meaning of the kings is extremely interesting. Among other things, he says that although the kings are not Buddhas themselves, they are in touch with the transcendental. Crude enough to intervene in worldly affairs, yet, as Sangharakshita says, because they are in touch with the ‘Golden Light,’ their interventions are positive. He also says that ‘a healthy secular society is a contradiction’ in terms and that ordinary secular energy, if not in touch with the transcendental will eventually turn negative.

The idea that ‘a healthy secular society’ is a contradiction in terms might be troubling or even sacrilegious to some, as we are living in a ‘secular age’- an age where the idea of a ‘higher power’ is disregarded, and certainly doesn’t tend to play much of a part in the economic, political and even cultural affairs of the United Kingdom and in many parts of the west.

So what is meant by ‘the transcendental’? What the word is referring to here- is beyond all words and concepts, so cannot adequately be pinned down in words- it is the source of all perfect wisdom and love. In some cultures the word used would be ‘God’ - but to the Buddhist - the transcendental transcends even ‘God’ as it is beyond all concepts. Though the concept of the one ‘God’ as depicted in Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc, though might represent a higher, transcendental power- it is not 'transcendental enough for Buddhism. It is still within the realm of subject and object, self and other - the two poles which have to be dissolved for perfect wisdom and love to come about. If a personal God is the highest reality, then it prevents perfect love and wisdom from being possible; this is why God has to be transcended.

But secularism fails to take this dimension of the transcendental seriously - what the word ‘transcendental’ is pointing to is simply not part of the secular world view - and this is to the detriment of us all - both individually and collectively. For me, if we are to see a revival, it needs to include a reference to this ‘higher power’. So the Return of the King- this heroic figure, made powerful, made wise, made kind, by his contact with the transcendental - able to bring spiritual values back into the world, with a vision that protects and supports those who seek access to it - would represent a restoration, a renaissance, a revival.

Return of the King

I don’t think the Return of the King represents a nostalgic return to some previous time, when everything was wonderful - I’m not sure such a time exists - although perhaps we can point to times when societies have flourished in certain ways and learn from them. Nor do I think a rebalancing of masculine and feminine necessarily means going back to the fifties with regards the role of women in society. Rather, we need to have a sensible re-evaluation of the place of the masculine in the world that is appropriate to modern times.

The fact that ‘The Return of the King’ motif seems to have been an ever present theme going back through history suggests that it represents an ever present struggle - both individually - the struggle to become and ever more balanced and mature person, and collectively - to establish and maintain a cohesive society.

The Return of the King transcends the mere pendulum swing between ideological extremes, which, from a Buddhist perspective, embodies Samsara—the endless cycle of reaction between opposites. As we have seen, at its best the king archetype represents intervention in the world based on contact with something that transcends these polarities. Within our own limited realms, we do what we can, nurturing hope for the Return of the King to restore and renew our culture.

My latest video- on Buddhism and romantic relationships….

I don’t think there is one ‘correct’ meaning for a story- nor that interpretations of a great story are exhaustible.

The Buddhist tradition does of course have many great stories and legends- so today I’d like to look at a story then we can see what themes come up for us:

This legend about Asangha, one of the founders of the Yogachara school of Buddhism, who lived in the 4th century in India:

Are you sitting comfortably? Then I’ll begin....

The Story of Asangha and Maitreya

After many years of intense study of Buddhism in a monastery, unsatisfied with his realisation, Asangha decided he needed to do some practice, so went to live in a cave- determined to meditate until he saw Maitreya- who is the Buddha of the future, who’s name means ‘the kindly one’.

After 6 years of meditation, he has still not met Maitreya, so he gives up and leaves his cave. On the way back to the monastery, he sees how a stream of water has gently but persistently worn down a rock after many years. Inspired to apply this gentle persistence and patience to his meditation practice he returns to the cave.

After three more years he gives up again, having still not seen Maitreya, and leaves the cave. This time he sees a man making a needle by stroking a stone with some cotton wool, inspired by the patience of this man he goes back to the cave once more.

Finally, after three more years, he gives up for the last time, and heads home. On the way back this time, he encounters a injured dog, who has a painful gash in his leg, in which there are maggots crawling. Filled with compassion, he gets on his hands and knees to remove the maggots with his tongue, so as not to hurt the dog. At that moment, Maitreya appears before him.

Asangha is delighted to see him but can’t help blurting out: “Where have you been! All those years meditating in the cave and you didn’t appear…”

“I was there all the time.” said Maitreya “You just couldn’t see me because you hadn’t yet developed selfless compassion. If you don’t believe me, carry me through the town and see who can see me.”

Asangha then carries Maitreya through the town on his shoulders, and only an old women can see part of Maitreya’s legs and the dog.

Maitreya transports Asangha to the Tusita Heaven, where he stays studying the Dharma for ‘50 earth years’, returning with the 5 Teachings of Maitreya…

I will now give you my thoughts on this story. Before reading on, stop for a moment and see what you take from this story- what themes and incidents in it resonate with you? (feel free to put any observations and reflections you have in the comments below)

The Path and the Goal

When he retreats to his cave, Asangha is determined to see Maitreya, but has no success for 12 years. It is significant that Maitreya is the Buddha of the future- it’s like Asangha is leaning into the future, grasping at a future version of himself. Perhaps it is this that is getting in the way of him being able to see Maitreya. This is one of those annoying problems of the spiritual life- we want to achieve enlightenment, make a breakthrough, but that wanting can itself be an obstacle. It is only when Asangha gives up, goes for a walk, and forgets himself in compassion for the dog, that Maitreya appears.

Does this mean that Asangha has been wasting his time for the past 12 years? That instead of meditating in a cave he should have been wandering round looking for injured dogs? I suspect not- I think he probably needed those 12 years to burn through his mental hindrances, purify his mind and to develop compassion. It seems unlikely we can have a breakthrough with our ordinary minds; full of anxiety, stress, delusion etc. But it points to an interesting problem in the spiritual life- applying more effort, putting more time in, isn’t always the answer.

Sangharakshita has some interesting things to say about this dilemma:

“Enlightenment is not reached by following a path. But this doesn’t mean that the path should not be followed. Paradoxically enough, you follow the path knowing that it doesn’t lead anywhere...Not even the ‘right’ path will take us to enlightenment. The path, one may say, is in the dimension of time, while the goal is in the dimension of eternity. We will never reach eternity by going on and on in time.”

I find it slightly annoying that reality is like this- that from the point of view of the unenlightened mind, reality is paradoxical; it is outside space, outside time- and therefore not understandable on the level of the rational mind, it cannot be pinned down with words or concepts. It reminds me of those ‘magic eye’ pictures that looked like a mess, then after a while you relaxed your focus and then an image emerged- I could never see those pictures- no matter how much I strained!

Sangharakshita always stressed that although the goal may not be reached by following the path, the path still has to be followed; like a spaceship trying to escape the earths gravity, we need to build an immense rocket of effort, and expend lots of energy, before we can relax and enjoy weightlessness- floating around, eating floating liquid food, and weeing into a space bottle. We need to train like a astronaut about to go into space, we need the gentle persistence of water wearing down rock over many years.

It seems like straining isn’t the answer though. Breakthroughs, paradigm shifts, seem to come after a period of intense practice, when we relax and go for a walk or something. Think of Archimedes getting into his bath, or Newton sitting under a tree. We need to build in periods of relaxation where we drop effort for a while, to create the conditions for insights to arise. But the intense study/ practice needs to come first- the path needs to come before the goal.

Perception of Time

When Maitreya takes Asangha up to the ‘Tusita Heaven’ the story says that he stays there for ‘50 earth years’- suggesting that time is experienced differently there- what does this mean?

Tusita heaven is one of the several higher realms in Buddhist cosmology- which are equivalent to higher mental states- this is where Maitreya is said to reside. You can’t get there by travelling in a car, or even a spaceship- but by raising your level of consciousness. Time flows differently there - time is experienced much more slowly- so that what would have felt like 50 earth years to Asangha in the Tusita heaven, would have actually been 3 hours in earth time. We don’t have to take this literally- we may prefer to think of Asangha having a very inspired experience lasting three hours, which formed the basis of his later teaching.

I often relate to time like it is something I am always short of- so I race even faster to try and get things done- which is not a very nice way to live. It feels like the worse state of mind I’m in- the less time I have. It is better is when I take my time, don’t rush things and do things carefully- it puts me in a better state, and I seem to get more done.

Breaking the Bonds of time and space...

I remember leading a class in which I was teaching newcomers the Metta Bhavana. In my introduction to the practice I said “You can break the bonds of time and space with this practice.” I’m probably not qualified to make such a claim, having not ‘broken the bonds of time and space’ myself! Nevertheless, intuitively I believe the statement to be true...

My statement suggests that we are trapped in time and space and that to break out of the prison of these dimensions would be a good thing. I’m sure the Buddhist tradition would agree with me on this- (in fact its probably where I got the idea from). Enlightenment is said to be outside time and space. This is epitomised by Amitabha/ Amitayus- the same Buddha with two different names- the first meaning infinite light (analagous to infinite space) and the second infinite life (analogous to infinite time) - we can take ‘infinite’ to indicate having stepped outside time/space.

The Metta Bhavana is a practice in five stages in which you cultivate good will towards yourself, a friend, a neutral person an enemy and then in the final stage- all beings everywhere. In the practice you are stretching your sphere of concern from yourself to include more and more people and beings, until you’re including the all beings everywhere. From a metaphysical point of view you could say you are dissolving the objective and the subjective- our sense of I’m here and the rest of the world is out there- and so breaking the bonds of space- and if you break the bonds of space you also break the bonds of time- they are interwoven (according to clever people like Einstein).

I have to say although I find it interesting to reflect on time and space, it does make my head hurt after a while, trying to get my head round these things. When my head starts hurting I take it as a sign I should ease up a bit. Maybe I should go for a walk.

I guess the main point of Asanghas story is that Maitreya was there all along, Asangha needed to forget himself and experience selfless compassion, to see the future Buddha Maitreya and to enter the Tusita heaven.

I like the fact that it was a dog that prompted Asangha’s compassion. No doubt its a dog because dogs in some cultures, are seen as lowly creatures, even impure creatures. I’m glad to say thats not the case in England, where dogs are treated like kings. Where I live in Hertford there is a shop called ‘Margaux’s’ which is an upmarket shop that calls itself a ‘lifestyle store for dogs’! That’s fine by me- I think dogs are one of life's joys.

So I will finish by saying we should all do the Metta Bhavana-which is for all beings- including dogs- because we really will break the bonds of time and space…

That’s not to say I’m a cynical, bitter, desiccated, husk of a man either. I just think too much emphasis is put on that particular type of relationship.

I must have been a victim of this sort of fallacy when I was young, though, as I remember suffering from a particularly bad case of unrequited love. My childish infatuation was not unlike that which Dickens hilariously recalls in David Copperfield, with the main character’s over-the-top adoration for Dora:

I was swallowing my tea, I was burning my toast, I was choking myself with crusts, in my excitement at seeing Dora. I was always burning, or choking, or swallowing in such excitement, for Dora…She was more than human to me. She was a Fairy, a Sylph, I don't know what she was — anything that no one ever saw, and everything that everybody ever wanted…

At the time, I asked an older, wiser friend what was happening to me. He told me about Carl Jung’s theory of the Anima and the Animus. As I understand it, Jung’s theory is that when someone falls in love, they are unknowingly projecting unintegrated parts of themselves (the feminine anima for men, the masculine animus for women) onto the object of their affections. They are often completely unaware of this, and believe the person to actually have the magical qualities which they are projecting. The less in touch a man is with his anima, or the less in touch a woman is with her animus, the more violent the falling in love.

Over the years I have become more and more convinced that this theory is accurate, and is borne out in my experience. Obviously, there is more going on in a sexual relationship than just this—the evolutionary drive to have children, the need for emotional intimacy, easing existential loneliness—it’s a complicated mix, but in terms of the ‘falling in love’ aspect, I think Jung’s theory is on the mark.

It’s appropriate that Jung used the words Anima and Animus—presumably stemming from the root ‘to animate’—as falling in love does animate something in us, it brings something dormant in us to life. It brings something magical, transcendental into our experience; and as such can be very useful: when these qualities are evoked in someone, we can consciously reclaim them in ourselves—in the process that Jung called Individuation.

This concept has not only changed the way I look at relationships- but also pop music. When I listen to classic pop songs like ‘There She Goes’ by the La’s, or ‘Fade into You’ by Mazzy Star., I am not only thinking of it on the level of love and desire for a particular person, but in recognition that ‘in earthly love there is a faint reflection of the divine’- which brings to them a whole other level of enjoyment and depth.

Falling in love is one of the most powerful experiences we have—there is something of the transcendent in it—but in its manifestation as a sexual relationship exclusively for one person, it is mixed in with selfish desire. This is often apparent when a relationship ends, and there is so much anger, possessiveness, feeling of betrayal and jealousy. If we can ‘purge our love of selfish desire’* then it can be a ‘key not only to the mysteries of Art, but to the secrets of spiritual development.’*

The Buddha’s response to this would be to ‘deny satisfaction to desire, the lowest form of Love, only in order to grant it fulfilment in its highest form, Compassion.’* To become a celibate monk or nun. If you are able to do this then great, but this is probably too advanced a practice for most of us, who haven’t yet developed the inner riches—or, to put it in Jung’s terms, withdrawn our projections enough—that we can be self-sufficient in this way. For most of us, it is probably easiest to work on this aspect of ourselves from within a relationship—ideally with a partner who is also trying to do the same. Gradually becoming less dependent on each other, less ‘sticky’ with each other, able to spend time apart and have one’s own interests and friends.

There is a touching story in the Buddhist tradition that perhaps illustrates this idea of a couple living out this idea, featuring two of the Buddha’s disciples—Bhadda Kapilani and Mahakassapa. They were born into wealthy families but both of them yearned to escape the worldly life and live an ascetic, holy life.

However, both of their parents were insistent that they get married. Mahakassapa employed a blacksmith to make a golden statue of an incredibly beautiful woman, saying to his parents: “If you can find a woman like this, who is an image of my idea of perfection, then I will marry her”—thinking that no such woman could be found. His clever mother, however, suspected that the image Mahakassapa had created was the image of a woman with whom he was ‘karmically connected’ from previous lives—and so it was… to the couple’s dismay, Bhadda Kapilani was found and matched the image of the golden statue.

The two reluctantly married, never consummating the union. When Mahakassapa’s parents died, they came into possession of their estate, but renounced it to live an ascetic life. They got robes and begging bowls, shaved each other’s heads, and set off into the world. Then they came to a crossroads and decided to part. Bhadda, who was later called by the Buddha: ‘The foremost in the recollection of past lives,’ said: “Our close companionship and friendship that has lasted for an unfathomable past ends today.”

The ground trembled and quaked and the sky thundered to mark their momentous parting as they walked in separate directions. Both were bound for an even greater union—on meeting the Buddha and the Buddha’s teaching—both becoming followers of the Buddha and both attaining enlightenment (arahantship).

“Thereafter soon I won the rank of Arahant.
Ah! well for me who held the friendship wise and good
Of glorious Mahakassapa.” declared Bhaddha.**

In their final life together, they are clearly extremely advanced practitioners, able to walk away from each other, but I imagine in their first meetings, in their first lifetimes together, them being drawn together and falling in love in a way not dissimilar to a Richard Curtis film, or like David Copperfield as mentioned above—full of yearning, misunderstandings, times when they tried to part but found themselves back together again, times when it was painful and sad… gradually, through the lifetimes, weeding from their union its more neurotic aspects.

There is another story I would like to share from later Buddhism which illustrates the process of refining one’s love and desire in a more sudden, dramatic way.

The story is that of Kankaripa. Though not a bad man, he had no interest at all in the spiritual life. His life was built around his beautiful wife, with whom he shared sensual pleasures beyond belief. When she died, he carried her lifeless body to a cremation ground, and there he broke down, paralysed with grief.

A yogi appeared next to him (yogi here meaning spiritual practitioner—not someone who does yoga) and asked him what was wrong. Kankaripa said: “With the death of my wife my life is over! I may as well tear my eyes out. No one has suffered like this!” The yogi said: “Why guard this corpse, no different than a lump of clay? Why not practice the Dharma and eliminate suffering?”

"If there is a way out of this suffering please give it to me!” said Kankaripa.

The yogi initiated him and became his guru. He gave him a meditation to practice, in which he imagined his wife not as a corpse but as a dakini, a ‘Sky Dancer’—a blissful embodiment of ultimate reality. Kankaripa practised the meditation for six years, using the practice to sublimate his grief and desire for his wife into a manifestation of the nature of reality. He became one of the 84 Mahsiddhas (Greatly Accomplished Ones)

He went on to teach many others and sang this song of realisation:

“My Dakini woman, my queen, my lady!
The visible form of my pure awareness,
Form not separate from me, nor yet a part of me,
The phenomenal appearance of empty space:
She is beyond compare and beyond words.”

*’Argument prefixed to ‘The Veil of Stars’’ by Sangharakshita: Complete poems, Windhorse Books

**Story and quotes from the story of Bhaddha Kapilani and Mahakassapa from ‘Great disciples of the Buddha” Nyanaponika & Hecker, Wisdom Books

***Kankaripa story and quotes from ‘Masters of Mahamudra’ by Keith Dowman

But Shelley wrote:

“That orbèd maiden, with white fire laden,
Whom mortals call the moon...”

This is a poetic vision of the moon- no less true to Shelley.
Both ways of looking are useful in their own way.

The first way of seeing- the scientific, objective, factual way, is useful in ways that are probably quite obvious- enables us to do things in the material world that are of use.

It does have some major downsides however- it doesn't provide meaning, it may get us to the moon- but doesn’t provide us with a reason to get to the moon- it may help us prolong life, but does not provide us for a reason to live. Because of the great success of science- more and more this way of seeing the world dominates us- to the point where it is hard to see in any other way- this makes our culture, our cultural imagination as barren as the surface of the moon.

The second way of seeing- the imaginal, is perhaps harder for us to see the usefulness of- because its not something we’re usually taught. Like Jacks’ magic beans- the poetic way of seeing is often dismissed as useless and impractical. To see things with the eyes of the mystic, the poet, is to imbue the world with meaning. It is to see things as a whole – to see our struggles in a broader context, a broader myth- without that broader context our struggles are just struggles- life is just survival. So the poetic vision frees one who sees it from the mundane.

As the great English poet William Blake says:

This Life’s dim windows of the Soul
Distorts the Heavens from pole to pole
And leads you to believe a lie
When you see with, not thro’ the eye

If we only see with the eye, not through it, we only see the surface of things, we see an incomplete, distorted picture; we have sight but not Vision.

But it would be a disastrous mistake to think we should only see things with the poetic eye all the time. This would be to get lost in our subjective inner world, to loose touch with the ‘objective’ outer world- and that would mean to be ‘away with the fairies’, to become ineffectual, impractical, to go a bit mad.

We see the tension between these two ways of seeing things in the world at times. The factual scientific way of seeing, may be dominant today- but you can never fully suppress the poetic- and it will find expression some how- even in distorted forms. We continue to mythologise the moon- even though we have landed on it- and found out it isn’t made of cheese. Now we mythologise secret bases on the dark side of the moon- or fake moon landings.

The war between the objective, scientific way of seeing things and the subjective- poetic way of seeing things rages on in all-sorts of ways in the modern world.

What we need is to combine the two- what Blake refers to as ‘Double Vision’ to be able to see things in their factual, objective sense and also in their poetic sense. To see the Moon as a ball of rock and as an ‘orbed maiden’.

If we live in this way, with double vision, we can negotiate the objective world and be effective in it, while also being energised and inspired by a poetic vision of the world.

What to others a trifle appears
Fills me full of smiles or tears;
For double the vision my eyes do see,
And a double vision is always with me.

The first task for most of us is to try and see things in the poetic sense, this mythic way of looking at things, which is much harder for us in the modern world, than seeing things in the objective, ‘rational’ way. One way of doing this is through art- poetry, literature, films, etc. Great artists will have access to the visionary world and great works of art take you by the hand and lead you into the visionary world and back. That's one of the functions of art- rather than just to distract or entertain us. The trick is to find something that attracts us and inspire is, then follow where it leads.

Once we’ve got a feel for the poetic, once we are inspired by the visionary and subjective, and we understand its importance and relevance to our lives, the task is to maintain our grasp of it in the world- even in the worst of circumstances. We may be able to be inspired and happy by this visionary realm in comfortable circumstances- but what about when life lets us down- when our partner leaves us, when we are ground down by uninspiring 9-5 job, when we are facing that life threatening operation, even living in a totalitarian state, in a concentration camp. This is where hard training and discipline come in.

In Buddhism, a figure that represents the mastery of Double Vision is the Bodhisattva- who is often presented as seen above- with one leg in meditation; as if in meditation one stepping down into the world. This represents the Bodhisattvas ability to remain in the midst of vision whilst also being in the world with compassion.

The Bodhisattva has seen the visionary world-to use Buddhist terminology, has had the vision of Sunyata - seen the ultimate nature of all things, which is a source of endless energy, kindness and insight. But not content just to sit back and watch the show, the Bodhisattva is right in the action- is in the world but not of it. The Bodhisattva will not only help people practically, but show them how to become Bodhisattvas themselves.

*I thoroughly recommend Patrick Harpurs’ book: ‘The Philosophers Secret Fire’ (The Squeeze Press), where this essay takes much of its inspiration

*Also Sangharakshitas’ ‘The Bodhisattva Ideal’ (Windhorse Books) for an inspiring account of the Bodhisattva

I’ve just uploaded a couple of new videos- a vide about the Metta Bhavana practice- a magical meditation practice everyone should try!

Also a 10 Minute Guided Meditation video of the same practice.

We seem to be living in polarised times. Here in the UK, since Brexit, that seems to be the case. The ‘culture war’ rages on, and there seems to be a similar battle going on in countries all over the west. ‘Progressives’ vs ‘Conservatives’, ‘Globalists’ vs ‘Patriots’ are a couple of ways you could divide up the combatants.

It seems to be the case particularly in America, where you get the sense opposing political sides are living in separate worlds, separate universes even. There has even been talk of civil war.

Both sides of the ideological divide have the same concern about the other- totalitarianism, extremism- we take the worst elements of each side then make a caricature out of them. 

Social Media, and the Mainstream Media, plays a part in this of course, with we seem to be hardwired to be drawn to controversial and adversarial content- ‘So-and-so destroys So-and-so” etc. Algorithms reward reward this type of content over the nuanced complex debate they type of things people fall out about deserve'- after all, many of the topics we fall out about are deeply complex issues; immigration, abortion, gender and so on.

There was a time when people thought the ability for people to share information freely over the world via the internet would lead to greater understanding and harmony- this definitely hasn’t been the case so far!

What would the Buddha do?

Why can’t we be more like the Buddha and ‘chill out’ a bit; to use the parlance of our times?

Partly perhaps it was his ability to empathise. The Buddha was known as the Lokavidū - the knower of the worlds. He knew the heights and depths of human experience.

In early Buddhist mythology- ie Indian mythology, the world is stratified into different realms- there is: the Human Realm, but also the realms of the Devas (gods), The Titans, The Hungry Ghosts, the Hell Realm, the Animal Realm.  

These realms are famously depicted in the wheel of life. (see below) 

These realms are not reachable by travelling on foot, or even SatNav, but rather by changing the state of mind we are in. Buddhism also has a layered vision of consciousness- and different states of consciousness correspond to different ‘worlds’. 

We may or may not take these different realms literally- but we can no doubt understand the principle that our state of mind determines our world. We have experienced that our state of mind determines the world we live in. 

“The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven..” 
― John Milton, Paradise Lost 

Also, within the human domain we live in there are different realms- based on their class, culture, interests, personality type, race, beliefs, gender, location, occupation, and so on. The human realm has within it many overlapping realms. You could also say that individually, we live in our own realm- the realm of ‘me’- sometimes we say of people- so-and-so is in their own world.  

Being a knower of the world is inseparable from knowing oneself. To be quite ‘Jungian’ about it, if we’re not aware of the parts of ourselves we don’t like and have difficulty in accepting, we will project those aspects onto other people and denounce them. A lot of the more extreme polarisation can perhaps be put down to this tendency to project onto others, those parts of our self we cannot accept. This will only estrange us from different realms.

The Buddha does not belong to any of these worlds- his does not belong to any realm of mundane existence- he is ‘in the world but not of it’- he has taken a step back from the world- he comprehends its workings.

This gave him the ability to understand anyone- even outcasts and people who many would shun- the Buddha impacted the lives of all sorts of people- from farmers to serial killers, from kings to prostitutes. He was critical and disregarded the hereditary caste system- maintaining that the quality of your actions and state of mind determines who you are; not the family you are born into. 

There is no realm the enlightened mind will not  enter to help beings. Again this is represented in the wheel of life- wherein each realm, there is a Buddha who appears in that world in a manner to help the beings there- in the deva world he plays a lute – playing a tune that reminds the complacent devas of impermanence, to the Titans he appears as a fearsome warrior to gain their respect, to the hungry ghosts he brings a balm which soothes there pain...  

True Diversity

We can develop this ability to empathize as well. Often we limit the sort of people we want to know about- we prefer not to have our ideas challenged, we prefer to stay in our safe world of the known. We even demonise those in other worlds. We read the same media outlets that confirm what we already think. Perhaps we should try reading opposing views- we should try and understand people in other realms, try to see things from their point of view. 

It’s very important to me that my Buddhist Community (Triratna) as well as the rest of the Buddhist world, does not ‘take a side’ in the culture wars. There is a need for a space where people can come together based on shared values that go deeper and higher than political views. There are examples of religious organisations- such as the Church of England- where there has been a lot of alienation in the community, due to the leadership seemingly taking aside- in this case being arguably more left-wing and ‘woke’, rather than carefully treading a middle way. I can’t help thinking that the recently resigned Justin Wellby was unable to put his own biases aside in favour of a more unified church. Admittedly this is a hard path to tread- and you can’t please everyone.

I think Triratna offers such a space pretty well, having avoided the trap of ‘identity politics’. Individually, members of the order and wider community represent a wide range of political views, and on the whole, at least there isn’t an assumption that people will share the same political views as you.

It might be assumed that Buddhist movements tend more towards the left, and maybe that is the case, but certainly there is enough recognition that Buddhism is not inherently ‘left wing’. There is even notable conservative people involved in the community- such as the conservative MP and former Home Office secretary Suella Braverman. Some in the community are dismayed by this, but I think its a healthy sign that the community is a place for both sides of the political spectrum.

I actually think Buddhism is better equipped than most to offer such a space as ultimately Buddhism points towards the transcendental- an ultimate reality that is beyond all dualities, beyond all polarities and as such cannot be appropriated in anyway. This form the basis for a community that can hold all differences- and be a truly ‘diverse’ community.

Not Moral Relativism

To see things through the eyes of conditioned co-production is to see things through the eyes of love- because we see the forces and conditions that make people they way they are.  “To understand all is to forgive all.” But all this touchy feely stuff is not to say that Buddhist morality is that of moral relativism- where morals change depending on the conditions, or ‘world’, you find yourself in. Buddhism posits a universal morality. The Buddha can always act from that transcendental vision, outside of the worlds- as opposed to being confused and overwhelmed by the innumerable ways to see the world. Sangharakshita once compared the Buddha to Julius Cesar-not in a moral sense of course- but in that the Buddha was decisive.

To those of us who are not enlightened though, it’s very difficult to know what the truth is- on just about anything. This can lead to an inability to act. Perhaps this is one of the reason we’re so liable to fix to one particular view of things- it make it easier to make decisions, we don’t have to constantly reappraise the world and take in new information. So along with open mindedness and empathy we need to develop wisdom and pragmatism.

The ideal of communication in Buddhism, whether online or in person, is that it be kind, helpful, harmonious and truthful. Ideally we should be able to tell each other what we think- perhaps disagree ardently- even furiously- but still remain in harmony. The road to getting to that point requires a lot of effort and trail and error- we need to be ready to forgive and allow each other to make inevitable mistakes- rather than ‘eternally damn’ or ‘cancel’ as we might say nowadays. We are very reactive beings who mix up our identities with our views, so inevitably there’s going to be mistakes made; but as my teacher Sangharakshita said :

“It is impossible for us to live together without mutual forgiveness.”

Here is my latest video: what’s the deal with UFOs? And what is the Buddhist take on them?

Have you ever seen a UFO or had a similar ‘anomalous’ experience of some kind?

I’d love to hear about it!

Aryajit

I looked into it for a bit and found that lots of people had seen these black triangular UFOs (or UAPs as they are also known these days). I even found a book written about them by a UFO researcher. 

For a while I went down the UFO rabbit hole – I really wanted to get to the bottom of all this!  

I watched endless podcasts and so on. I noticed that one characteristic of UFO investigation is the sense that the final clinching piece of evidence is about to come out, disclosure is always ‘imminent’, but never arriving.

 I have no reason to doubt most of the people who have these experiences- I'm sure some of them are simply lying but not all of them are. These experiences seem to exist in a liminal state- they can’t be proved ‘empirically’ to the satisfactions of modern scientism, but nevertheless they continue to be part of human experience- along with ghosts, spiritual experiences and other supernormal phenomenon. The nature of many of these experiences is that there is no getting to the bottom of them; they exist on the edges of things- in a twilight zone beyond reason and ‘common sense’. 

The writer Patrick Harpur* argues that UFOs, like ancient myths, fairy sightings, or spiritual apparitions, are part of a long-standing tradition of anomalous experiences. These events, which were previously understood in terms of daimons, fairies, spirits, or gods, are now interpreted through the lens of modern technology and science fiction. It is interesting to note that some UFO investigators put it the other way around; they retrospectively consider encounters with supernormal beings such as angels and devas as being encounters beings with advanced technology visiting earth. 

In modern western culture we largely ignore experiences which don’t accord with modern materialist assumptions.  According to Harpur the modern western world is novel in ignoring this realm of spirits, fairies and daimons- and that there is no culture which hasn’t taken this existence of these beings for granted. When it comes to UFOs- I tend to believe that the worlds governments are as much in the dark about them as everyone else- having no category to put them in. The nature of UFOs, says Harper, is that they are ambiguous- they are both real and unreal, even material and non-material, the shape shift and can be malevolent or benevolent. We tend not to be able to handle this these days- things have to be rational, either real or unreal- not both, or in-between. So, most of the time we just ignore these things.  

Growing up in the west as I have, at the time I have, I’ve been conditioned to go along with this way of thinking- but I've always wanted life to have a bit of magic. I always wanted to see a ghost when I was young and enjoyed listening to ghost stories. After watching Ghostbusters, me and my friends started a ‘Ghostbusters Believers Club’. My friend drew a Ghostbusters sign on the garden shed which we used as our base. I don’t recall us doing much ghostbusting though- I think we mainly just met and ate sweets; but there was clearly some yearning and fascination behind this idea.  

It seems to me that, by not acknowledging or having a place for this- what can one call it?- non-rational realm, otherworld, liminal state- the modern world is impoverished. We have become increasingly secular, linear and frankly a bit boring. I don’t know if TS Elliots poem ‘The Wasteland’ is about this- but that’s the term that comes to mind- the modern world feels like a wasteland. I intuitively felt this growing up.  

This modern-materialist outlook has been developing for centuries. The artist and visionary William Blake railed against it- and in the mythic system he invented came up with Urizen- archetype of reason- who is characterized as ensnaring people in his net of reason and laws- he is in opposition to Los- god of imagination. I think modern, mainstream scientific and philosophical thinking is in thrawl to Urizen’s intellectual tyranny. 

So why is this such a big deal?  

Well, if our modern world view and culture is incomplete we are  incomplete. We yearn for the ‘Psychic Nourishment’ of this realm- of which UFOs seem to be a signpost. It is a realm of emotion, awe and wonder. It is where the magic happens- where the transformation happens- indeed just to ‘enter into it’ so to speak, is to be transformed- it gives us a new way to see the world- a more complete, integrated way. I know that when I am in touch with the imaginal, I am at my best, I feel more alive, more complete. The rest of the time I yearn to be back in touch with it. 

But if you go up to the average man in the street and ask him “Hey man, are you getting enough psychic nourishment from the Imaginal Realm?” they will look bewildered and frightened. If you try to pursue it further they may become angry and try and get away from you. 

Thankfully there are still communities and traditions that keep connection with this realm alive. I was lucky enough to stumble into one of them- the Triratna Buddhist Community; like stumbling upon a ‘garden planted in a wilderness’. 

The figure in Buddhism who perhaps symbolises this realm and the possibility to connect and benefit from it is Padmasambhava- one of the figures credited with introducing Buddhism to Tibet in the 7^th Century. It is difficult to know what parts of his story are historical or mythical- by nature both real and unreal. He cannot be contacted by email or Whatsapp, but he can be contacted by other means- or sometimes he will contact you. Like a Shaman he can help take us to the imaginal realm, where we can heal, renew and transform. 

*I very much recommend Harpur’s Book: The Philosophers Secret Fire: A History of the Imagination 

It’s hard to know how popular the Law of Attraction is, but it seems like it must be quite a significant stream of thought/ self-help topic, in today's world.  It’s been made popular by books such as Napoleon Hills ‘Think and Grow Rich’ and the film ‘The Secret’ by Rhonda Byrne. There is a big industry of Law of Attraction coaches, books, courses etc. 

The law of attraction states that what we think about, what we feel and expect is what we attract in our life. So, if we constantly think about being poor and lonely that is what we will manifest. Whereas, if we think and expect to be rich and find our ‘soulmate’- that is what we will manifest. 

One of the Buddha most famous saying is: 

Experiences are created by mind, led by mind, and produced by mind. 
If one speaks or acts with an impure mind, suffering follows 
Just as the wheel follows the hoof of the ox pulling the cart... 

If one speaks or acts with a pure mind, happiness follows,
like a shadow that never departs.* 

At first glance these might seem to be saying the same thing so does Buddhist thought coincide with the law of attraction? 

I suppose the danger of the law of attraction is that you enjoy visualising and fantasizing about what you want, and think that enough, you don’t try and do anything about it. I came across someone on YouTube who teaches ‘The Law of Assumption’ - an off shoot of the Law of Attraction that states that you have to train yourself using your imagination to believe that you already have what you want and then you will manifest it. This teacher goes so far as to say that if you want to win the lottery, you don’t necessarily have to be in possession of a ticket- its all about assuming you have it. She claimed it was also possible to see loved ones who had died through using this law. Other teachers are much less solipsistic, and say imagining your goal is a very important first step, and then you have to do the work to get it. 

The latter would be a bit closer to the Buddhist view. You can talk about the Buddhist path in terms of Vision and Transformation- you have the vision, or intuition of reality, which you try to dwell in and keep in mind, then live your life in such a way that you bring yourself in line with your vision. 

But as is fitting for a secular, materialist age, the law of attraction presents itself not as a religion, but a self-help doctrine, and its advocates tend to emphasize the law of attraction for getting lots of money or getting material things, or the perfect partner- it tends not to emphasize what is behind the drives for such things or what will really make us happy. As such it’s hard not to be a bit cynical about it. Maybe that’s a bit unfair, as many of the people who believe in it seem very well intentioned, and I think in many ways it is quite positive. 

You can’t really compare Buddhism and the Law of Attraction though- one is a 2500 year old religion from India, while the other is a Self Help doctrine which has come about over the past 100 years from America. 

Perhaps the Law of Attraction is a reaction against the rise of Scientism- the belief that only things that can be empirically proven are worth considering. This viewpoint rather removes the role the subjective plays in determining outcomes. It is arguably the dominant, or at least a very dominant view in todays world. The Law of Attraction and Buddhism, seek to reassert the importance that the mind plays in reality. 

Interestingly, at the beginning of the movie the  Secret, the Law of Attraction is presented as a secret that has been kept from the masses by some sort of elite kabal- something like the ‘illuminati’. It seems more likely to me, that it before the rise of scientism over the past few hundred years, there wasn’t such a disregard for the subjectve pole of our experience, it was just considered part of peoples lives- through spirits, magic, religion etc. 

All this raises the question that all this raises for me- and it’s a question that runs through the history of philosophy, Buddhism and is at the heart of some of the arguments we’re having in the modern world- to what extent is the reality we experience created by our minds and subjective experience, and to what extent is our experience the result of our senses meeting the objective world ‘out there’? 

This is a very mysterious and profound question; the answer to which is beyond us in our current state, as fixed in a subject/object duality, all our language is based in this dichotomy.  The Buddhist approach to the question is the middle way- to not go to either extreme and eventually transcend the object and subject duality- which is a way of describing Buddhahood. 

Buddhism vs Christianity: 

I want to compare the religion of my country of birth, with the religion from foreign lands I have embraced. 

These are my personal observations and ponderings, as opposed to a deep scholarly study.

I went to a Church of England school. Looking back it was rather pleasant- we sang hymns (I liked ‘To be a Pilgrim’, and ‘He’s got the Whole World in his Hands'- because we sang he’s got the whole world in his pants). A mild vicar came and spoke to us each week. Jesus sounded like a decent fellow to me- but I never understood how his crucifixion ‘wiped away our sins’ as I had heard it said. The crucifixion never spoke to me as a symbol. My parents weren’t particularly religious, so I was left to make my own mind up about such things. All in all, I found the Church of England of my childhood inoffensive and I’m grateful it was there- but it was rather elderly, lifeless and unexciting. It was incredibly ‘uncool’. My devotional feelings were directed mainly towards Manchester United. 

So I grew up like most people these days as an atheist, but wanting there to be some magic in the world- I didn’t want it to be a lifeless world of dead matter that is often presented to us by the prevalent ‘humanist materialism’ that is surely more dominant than Christianity these days, at least in the UK. 

In my early twenties I came across Buddhism and this resonated with me. I moved into a Buddhist community and went through a period of being rather scornful of Christianity- which was rather immature because I didn’t really know enough to be scornful. 

I remember at one point the Buddhist centre I lived and worked at starting selling Richard Dawkins ‘The God Delusion’ - which was unusual because the shop usually only sold Buddhist books. I didn’t agree with it being sold there, because the book wasn’t offering a Buddhist critique of God, but one based on the aforementioned ‘humanist materialist’ world view- which I think in some ways is more harmful than the Christian world view. 

I started being more scornful of ‘humanist materialism’ than Christianity, as I sensed that this was certainly more of an insidious threat. A wolf in sheep's clothing. It presents itself as a common sense worldview based on a set of objective facts, while really it is a set of beliefs and views just as much as any religion... 

The central teaching of Buddhism is Dependent Arising- this says that all things, all phenomena are dependent on other causes and conditions- nothing exists independently- including ourselves. The Buddhist tradition applies the word ‘Sunyata’ - ‘emptiness’ to this state of affairs- i.e.. all phenomena is ‘empty’ of independent existence. To realise this and see through the illusion of a fixed self is to become enlightened. This is to dissolve the illusion of separateness, and so dissolve fear, hate, anger ignorance. If one would perceive anything, however subtle, as not being ‘sunyata’, one would not be perfectly enlightened- as this would set up a distinction between things, and so bring in hate, fear, anger and so on. Everything in Buddhism- including the Buddhas- are ‘sunyata’. According to Buddhism, anyone has the potential to become a Buddha. The teaching of Sunyata runs through the whole of Buddhism like the writing on a stick of rock. This is the metaphysical backdrop which informs the life of the Buddhist. 

In Christianity we have the idea of God, but we cannot become God, we cannot even become an angel- so Christianity posits a universe of separate beings. From a Buddhist point of view this is disastrous, as if we live in a world of separate phenomena, then we cannot achieve that state of perfect love and connection, transcending the prison of self; to have an object is to have a subject. 

The idea of a supreme being God also has ethical considerations. Ethics in Buddhism is based on the idea that ethics are naturally built into reality-and if you act from love things will turn out better for you and those around you, because your actions are more in line with reality; ethical actions break down the sense of separateness and lead to wisdom. If ethics are imposed on us from a supreme authority figure like God, then ethics becomes more about reward and punishment, rather than natural morality.

Now this is to assume Christians take the concept of God literally, rather than standing as a metaphor for something akin to the Buddhist concept of Sunyata. As far as I can make out, Christianity is on a spectrum with one side of the spectrum being those who take the existence of God as a separate supreme being, take the word of the bible literally (such as the Jenova's witnesses who knocked on my door once, and politely informed me I would be going to hell) and the those Christians who take the bible and God more metaphorically (more like the  Quakers). 

The more metaphorical God is taken the more sense Christianity makes to me. I would much rather have a culture with a metaphorical God than a grim, materialist culture- which we’re so dangerously flirting with now; which isn’t much of a culture at all. Some people say that having removed God and Christianity from society, it is gradually beginning to topple over, having lost its foundations.

So, a major advantage Buddhism has over Christianity, is its built-in defence against literalism (though many Buddhist are still far too literal minded)  Somewhat paradoxically though, Christianity's advantage over Buddhism is God- as at least God gives you something to ‘get hold of’, an all powerful father figure to rally around, whereas Buddhism offers a very subtle , ungraspable and easily misunderstood ‘sunyata’, which can easily be mistaken for a path into nothingness. So subtle, the Buddha himself doubted whether it would be communicable to a ‘generation caught up in sense experience.’ The challenge for Buddhists is to communicate to the modern world the fullness and beauty of this state of being- through words, art, music, but most urgently; through exemplification. 

They appear on the wheel of life in one of the six realms of Samsara.

The deva realm is above the human realm, as the devas represent more refined, more pleasurable states of consciousness. They live in the 'heavens', of which there are many layers- each more refined and pleasurable than the last.

The deva realms are not physical locations you can reach by foot, nor can any sat-nav guide you there. Instead, these realms are accessible through higher states of consciousness, specifically the Dhyanas, which correspond to the deva realms. When you enter Dhyana—a state characterized by the absence of negative emotions—you are said to be experiencing a lower deva realm. In that moment, you might even be considered a deva yourself, as you embody a state of mind that is free from anger, greed, and delusion, if only temporarily, while that state lasts.

The devas are not enlightened, however refined they are, and it's said that the coarser human realm is a more effective realm for becoming a Buddha- because with all that pleasure and refinement, the Devas become a bit complacent..

I wouldn't mind a few lifetimes up there though....

I find devas very inspiring to think of and represent for me the principle that if you work on your mind and enter higher consciousness, you enter another world:

"The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a heav'n of hell, a hell of heav'n."

Milton, Paradise Lost

There is a set of Buddhist Meditation practices called the ‘Brahma Viharas’ the ‘Divine Abodes’ in which you can cultivate ‘god-like’ mental states.

The first is the Metta Bhavana- the Cultivation of Kindness.

The 2nd the ‘Karuna Bhavana’ the cultivation of compassion- the quality that arises when kindness meets suffering.

Then the beautiful ‘Mudita Bhavana’- the cultivation of sympathetic joy- the joy that arises on others good fortune or good qualities.

And finally the exalted ‘Uppekha Bhavana’ the cultivation of Equanimity- a quality in which our positive state of mind is not dependent on outer conditions or events.

A disciplined daily practice, whatever form it takes—be it meditation, prayer, writing, drawing, or reading—can turn our minds toward the good and away from the negative. In doing so, we elevate our consciousness, transforming not just ourselves, but the world around us, inching closer to a "god-like" realm.

Buddhist meditation can have many wonderful benefits such as less stress and anxiety but ultimately is for becoming enlightened, (the best way to be totally free from stress and anxiety is to become a Buddha anyway). 

Meditation starts from how we find ourselves right now. Not how we’d like to be, not how we imagine we are, not a ‘Spiritual you’ but how we actually are. Some people think ‘I can’t meditate because I cant concentrate I get too distracted.” But whatever mind you’ve got that’s where work from. We start from where we are.

Ordinary Consciousness 

Most of the time we are in ‘Ordinary Consciousness’- which is to say we have at least one of the 5 hindrances in our experience: Craving for sense experience, Ill-Will, Doubt and Indecision, Anxiety, and Sloth and torpor.  

These 5 hindrances weigh us down and ‘cover’ our minds, so we cannot experience our minds as they are underneath- which is intensely positive and radiant. So we start with practices such as the Mindfulness of breathing in which we become asorbed in the direct sensations of breathing, or Metta Bhavana in which we cultivate kindness towards ourselves and others- thereby loosening the grip of the hindrances.  

Access Concentration

Next comes ‘Access Concentration’ - this is when the hindrances begin to lose their power, and we have access to the ‘Dhyanas’.* In access concentration meditation become easier and more enjoyable, and you often experience a delightful release of energy and emotion.  

The Dyhanas

Next the 1st dhyana, which is when none of the hindrances are present and is very pleasurable and inspired state of mind. Thinking is still present, but is thinking of a very focused and directed kind.  

The second dhyana is more refined than the first, and thinking is absent. There are 8 Dhyanas enumerated, each more refined and pleasurable than the last. People report having amazing visions and experiences and developing special abilities from these states.  

Because the in the first dhyana thinking is still present, it is from that state you can gain insight, because you can reflect on the nature of reality. Traditionally you reflect on the transitory nature of things (Anicca) or suffering (Dukkha) or the insubstantial nature of things (Anatta), using these concepts as gateways into a direct seeing of reality.  

Insights

Gradually you become better at working with your mind, so that you become more accustomed to these higher states of consciousness. You start to gain flashes of insight, and these become more regular and eventually become constant illumination. A new you- the REAL you – emerges.  

Cautions

Not everyone likes emphasizing ‘levels’ of consciousness, and the dhyanas- for fear of encouraging an attitude of grabbing pleasure or even competitiveness- or worrying if we are not having blissful or visionary experiences, we are doing something wrong! Its important that we don’t make meditation about forcing peak experiences- it should be seen as a way of raising the general level of consciousness, ideally as part of a coordinated effort with the rest of our life outside of meditation.  

*Interestingly, dhyana is where we get the word ‘zen’ from- when Buddhism went to China the word dhyana became ‘chan’, and when it arrived in Japan it became ‘zen’ 

Economically, ecologically, politically; to name just a few, the cracks are appearing.

Things don’t feel as secure as they did a few years ago.

Having been born where I was, when I was and in the family I was, (ie. I have been very lucky), this feels like somewhat new territory for me. People talk about things like ‘Are we living in End Times’ and ‘Will the Human Race get out of this Century’. A friend of mine who’s opinion I respect, says he thinks people will look back on the last 60 odd years in the west as a period of stability and prosperity that we won’t see again, and that everything is going to pot...

There are those who say actually, everything is getting better and humanity will solve whatever problems are thrown at it. But even if they’re right, and the doom mongers are being pessimistic, life is inherently fragile and uncertain.

So, is security to be found anywhere? Who, or what, is there to turn to?

It seems strange to me that we should ever think in terms of ‘stability’ and ‘security’. We just don’t live in a secure and stable world. Even without all the problems we create for ourselves- we still live in an impermanent, insubstantial, uncertain reality. It’s odd, like a fish not adapting to water, we continue to crave for things to be permanent and reliable. I guess it’s a natural, evolutionary human urge- to want to bring order to chaos.

I remember the poster for a film called ‘Rabbit Hole’. It stars Nicole Kidman and Aaron Ekhart, and is about a couple who’s child dies, and tells the story of them trying to come to terms with it. The tagline on the poster ‘The only way out is Through’. I’ve never seen the film, and don’t know if it’s any good, but that tagline has always stayed in my mind.

The death of one's child is the worst thing I can imagine happening to me. To be faced with it is not something I wish to even think about much, let alone face. But that is the reality of life- people do lose their children, sometimes in the most horrifying manor- I could lose mine. It seems to me the road to security means facing up to the fact of death.

This is certainly the Buddhist attitude toward security- ‘the only way out is in’- it is only to be found in facing what we fear. That is why Buddhist practice is focused on reflecting on impermanence, suffering and insubstantiality ; it's only by turning towards these realities that we can be at peace with them.

Each of these 3 when reflected with an absorbed and radiant mind lead to insight into the true nature of things, as opposed to the state of denial we live in most of the time.

In Buddhism, committing to a path and training in gradually turning towards the truth is called ‘Going for Refuge’ - taking refuge in what can really bring security, as opposed to what we usually think can- money, relationships, property, comfort.

A Buddhist goes to Refuge to the ‘3 Jewels’

- the Buddha representing the potentiality we all have of realising the truth

- the Dharma- the truth itself, and also the teachings leading to it

- the Sangha- the community of Buddhas and those who have gained insight into the truth.

I got a big dictionary, rolled up a pillow and sat on it, and did the Maitri Bhavana (Cultivation of Kindness) meditation , a practice aimed at cultivating kindness toward oneself and others. This practice is in five stages. In each stage, you bring to mind a different person or people: 

1^st: stage: yourself 
2^nd stage: a good friend 
3^rd stage: a neutral person 
4^th stage: an enemy 
5^th stage: all beings everywhere 

During each stage, you attempt to cultivate kindness for each person or people. 

On this occasion, something I wasn’t expecting happened.  

I realised two things. 

Firstly, I wasn’t such a terrible person. I had a tendency to think very poorly of myself – to think I wasn’t good enough, didn’t look good enough, was somehow bad and unworthy. I realised that actually I was OK. If I were someone else who knew me, I’d probably like me. 

Secondly, and not unrelated to the first realisation: I didn’t need to have any enemies. At the time I was working with some people I didn’t like, and who I felt didn’t like me. I realised I could just drop that. 

These two realisations were accompanied by a feeling in my body as if something had thawed out – a release. Over the next few months, I experienced greater clarity, creativity, patience and energy than I was used to. Part of me was more alive.  

I naively thought I had cracked it! That this state was permanent, that I had discovered something I could go back to which would always help me rise above whatever feelings or situations I came into. It wasn’t quite like that, as the experience faded away. But the experience did give me a glimpse of what was possible in practising meditation and Buddhism, and it has informed the rest of my life…. 

It set me on a path to living and working at the London Buddhist Centre, and to many years of study, retreats, friendship and ultimately ordination. In a sense, all of this has been about delving more deeply into that experience, that opening, and taking it to its final conclusion, which I’m sure is Enlightenment: the complete removal of all separation between self and other, between subject and object.  

At times I have strayed a long way from the realisations I had during that meditation. I have been dogged by low self-esteem and possessed by hatred at times. But I have always come back to that experience as a touchstone. It has helped me in some difficult situations, and it has been a guiding principle.  

I know that everyone has their own ideas about “what should be taught in schools”. But I am convinced that if all children were taught the Maitri Bhavana, or something similar, the world would be a better place. I don’t think the Maitri Bhavana can solve all our problems, but it is a good place to start. 

The transcendental holds the key to dissolving our problems, it is the ultimate answer we seek. Individually it fulfils our deepest wishes. Collectively, it gives us a vision to unite us and provide societal direction. Without reference to something greater than us, we falter both as individuals and as a community, a situation that I believe reflects the current state of our society.

What is the ‘Transcendental’?

The word transcendental is often used for what the Buddha referred to as ‘Lokattura; that which is beyond the world. Other translations include ‘The Unconditioned’, or ‘Supramundane’.

The word ‘Transcendental’ may sound a bit ‘Woo Woo’ but really what it is pointing to, isn’t too outlandish...

For example- take you, take any of us- we feel like we are a separate person, separate from the world, separate from other people. That’s our everyday experience. We divide our experience into ‘me’ and the ‘world’.

But when we think about it and examine this idea doesn’t really add up- our bodies are made up of the stuff we eat, drink, and breathe in. It enters into us, then passes out- no part of us is fixed and stays the same, there’s no part of us we can point to and say ‘that’s me, that’s my essence’.

The same mentally- we are a collection of thoughts and feelings, memories- if we examine our stream of consciousness, we will not find anything fixed there either- we will find a flow of ever-changing mental states and thoughts.

Some believe that we have an eternal, unchanging soul which goes to up to heaven (or down to hell) when we die. Others believe that it is reincarnated life after life. Buddhism does not hold either of these eternalist views. It maintains that there is no ‘fixed self’ no eternal essence. But it doesn’t go to the other extreme of saying we don’t exist- the nihilist view, but rather it says we exist as a flow- a middle way between externalism and nihilism.

So, Buddhist practice involves aligning our thoughts and emotions with the notion that we do not exist as a fixed self.

This is no easy task, as it means upending our most ingrained assumptions, but if we can manage it, we stop experiencing ourselves as a fixed separate being and now experience ourselves as connected with all beings. We have transcended the illusion of a self and other, and become a Buddha! Having been freed from the prison of ‘fixed self’ we now experience unhindered connection with others- love and kindness flow freely. Up to now we have experienced kindness intermittently and imperfectly, but now there is nothing to check the flow of kindness and compassion.

Kindness as a path to the Transcendental

So the path of Transcendence leads to kindness and selflessness. But we could also put it the other way around. The practice of kindness leads to the transcendental. After all- we all know what kindness is; we been touched by it, all are capable of kindness-, however flawed we are. This is a taste of the transcendent, however faint, a taste of selflessness, of connection with something beyond ourselves.

If we make a conscious effort to turn our mind towards kindness- kindle the flame of it, reflect on it, look for it in ourselves and others, if we train in it, dwell in it, delight in it, we will be on the path to the transcendental, the path to enlightenment.

This is not a sentimental way of looking at things as far as Buddhism is concerned, kindness is inseparable from wisdom; true kindness is the most appropriate response to reality.

Collective Transcendental Vision

It is very hard, if not impossible to tread this path alone- the easiest way is to tread this path with others, to join with others whose goal, who’s orientation is also to transcend themselves; egos coming together to achieve ego-lessness. We need a culture which ultimately points to the transcendental. The trouble is, in this age of secularism, the highest goal is not usually the transcendental. They tend to not be things which lead to our going beyond ourselves, going beyond self. They tend to be things which keep us imprisoned in self, and sometimes reinforce the delusion.

Lets look at how philosophically, religiously and culturally we do not have a strong enough vision of the transcendental.

Refuting Scientism

‘Scientism’ is perhaps the dominant belief system of the age. It is the belief that science and the scientific method, or at least what its adherents consider such, are the best or only way to gain valid knowledge about the world. From a Buddhist perspective, true understanding encompasses not only empirical evidence but also the direct, experiential knowledge of the mind and consciousness; but scientism tries to remove the part played by the observer completely. Strangely, scientism is not actually scientific – it tends to be narrow and dogmatic, rejecting evidence which doesn’t fit with its existing paradigm. The dominance of ‘scientism’ in society, narrows our horizons-it disregards the insights gained through introspection, meditation, and spiritual practice, and the means through which the transcendental can be known.

God

The concept of God presents something beyond the world something bigger than ourselves, and to some extent represents transcendence. But the influence of God in society has severely reduced over the past 100 years; and anyway, the concept of god falls short of what Buddhism considers the transcendental. The problem of god is that he is usually conceived of as a literal, existing supreme being, and as such doesn’t allow us to transcend self and other, subject and object According to Buddhist metaphysics- if there is something in the universe conceived of as existing independently and objectively, then there is still subject and object, still self and other and therefore still greed hatred and delusion. By contrast, although Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are worshipped and visualized by Buddhists- they are not considered independently existing entities- rather they are the transcendental as perceived by human consciousness.

The lack of a true transcendental goal in a religion, also leads to problems of literalism. If words are not used to ultimately point beyond words, then meanings become literalised, which leads to belief systems becoming ossified, and unable to move with the times.

The Vacuum

Despite the problems with god being unable to provide a true transcendental ideal, he has left a big hole in society. In addition to that the preponderance of scientism in society has left us with a meaning crisis. People need their lives to be about something, and they need a group to feel a part of. Into the vacuum traditionally filled by religion, have swept many different group identities, ideologies and causes.

Many of these are important and serve a purpose- but without reference to the trancendental- without reference to something which goes beyond individualism- they can become toxic:

Group identities mean we end up demonising other groups. With no higher moral values to check them, ideologies lead to moral relativism where the end justifies the mean. Just causes become means to assert oneself and seek power.

The Only Common Denominator

No ideology or group identity can include everyone. Ideologies cannot do it- because there is always someone who takes another view and disagrees. Group identities cannot do it- because by definition they exclude people who do not have the characteristics to belong to that group.

To have a truly unified community- it needs to be something that transcends self and other, transcends subject and object, transcends concepts. Only that which defies being appropriated in any way, can provide a universal vision.

Now it is highly unlikely that all of society will convert to Buddhism. But I hope the transcendental principal in Buddhism can influence these ideologies, religions and group identities.

We desperately need an underlying philosophy that appreciates the benefits of science and objective enquiry without dismissing subjective experience, and stifling the imagination.

God needs to be reimagined as a metaphor for the transcendental, rather than being viewed strictly as an objective entity or supreme being, thereby bringing out the best of theistic traditions.

All the causes and ideologies people identify with, must subordinate themselves to the transcendental, so that their influence in society can be based on compassion and not power.

Ultimately, as we examine our society's philosophical foundations, we can remember that kindness is universally desired and agreed upon, making it a practical path to individual and collective transcendence.