Clarity vs. Trust

I've been pondering the notion of clarity lately. In truth, I've found myself envying those who have it. Times are uncertain for me right now.

Whenever I hear the word "clarity," I think of a story I heard once about a struggling priest who went on sabbatical and as part of his travels, went to Calcutta to meet Mother Theresa. When he finally met her, he requested that she pray that he have clarity in his life. Mother Theresa responded, "I will not pray for you to have clarity. I will pray for you to trust."

In meditation this morning, I considered that clarity comes from the ego and ultimately is a delusion or fixation. It's nice to have, yes, but with clarity comes a sense of tunnel vision or exclusion of possibility. What if the Divine's will for you, or the deepest expression of who you are, is distinct from what you are so clear about? Clarity in this case would keep you from noticing, from being open to new possibility. Trust, on the other hand, necessitates a certain kind of openness.

Put another way, clarity is attachment that's convincing. Trust reflects commitment to the divine, the context that one cannot ever be certain of what is best and next.

This reflection brings to mind chapter 20 of the Tao Te Ching, which asks, "Is there a difference between yes and no?" Lao Tsu confesses, "But I alone am drifting, not knowing where I am. Like a newborn babe before it learns to smile, I am alone, without a place to go."

This greatest of sages even goes so far as to say "I am a fool. Oh yes! I am confused. Other men are clear and bright, but I alone am dim and weak."

He closes the poem by saying "Everyone else is busy, but I alone am aimless and depressed. I am different. I am nourished by the great mother."

"Aimless and depressed" does not sell self-help books and will not be associated with "The Secret." I understand, however, that Mother Theresa herself was party to immense spiritual doubt. But often "aimless and depressed" is the dark that comes before the dawn of something new and beautiful. Clarity will be of no help here.

Don't blame the 60s; blame high school seminaries.

A five-year study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice recently concluded that the Catholic Church’s sexual abuse crisis was in large part caused by the sexual revolution and changing social mores of the 1960s. It should come as no shock that the church oversaw this study and partially paid for the study.

The principal investigator, Karen Terry, concludes:

• Homosexuality was not to blame.
• Celibacy was not to blame.
• It wasn't a pedophilia problem, since most of the kids involved were older than 10, which the study used as the cutoff for pedophilia. (Most kids abused were older than 10.)
  
• Boys were abused more often because troubled priests had more access to them than girls
• Priests were affected by the broad-sweeping changes of the 60s.
  
  

Most articles I’ve seen commenting on this study cut right to the church criticism, which I believe is warranted. I think there are some valid points to this study that the church should take to heart. Most notably that homosexuality was not to blame. Pope Benedict has had a witch-hunt mentality toward gay priests, so I’m glad that this information has come to light.

I begrudgingly accept that celibacy isn’t to blame either. Although I think that celibacy is to blame for many other ills facing the church and threatening its viability as a force for good in the current millennium. And if we had married priests, Catholics could have their pick of many fine candidates for the ministry that they would otherwise never have. (They would also have more Catholics.)

The study also posits that celibacy has been church policy for more than 1,000 years, so that cannot explain why the 1960s saw a spike in abuse nor why there were fewer reports beginning in the 1980s.

According to Terry, psychological exams, intelligence tests, and developmental history information would predict which priests would become abusers.

I have several thoughts about this study and its conclusions, but I’ll stick to one for now. The widespread influence (until fairly recently) of high school seminaries, and generally shame-based attitudes about human sexuality, formed a deadly duo that caused the crisis.

High school boys’ brains are still forming, as are their sexual identities. It’s a time when healthy sexual development depends on flirting, courting, dating, and getting to know what females (or males, if you're gay) of the species look, smell, and feel like, up close. If this development is stunted, combined certain teachings equating masturbation with sin, sexual desire with the sin of lust, unhealthy introjection will follow. Carry an unlived youthful sex life through to adulthood and add contact with young boys and girls, combine with loneliness, and you have the perfect storm. (There could also be an authority complex that some of the priests were suffering too.)

Regrettably, there are still high school seminaries; the church is tragically behind in its own understanding and embracing of human sexuality, not to mention its advocacy for school-aged boys and girls. Specifically, the church needs to embrace that a heart-centered, adventurous sexual life is healthy for one’s psychological development. I know, I know. Not. Gonna. Happen.

It doesn’t mean telling kids to have sex. It means encouraging them to have fun, make out, not be ashamed of their bodies, and learn healthy boundaries such that they can understand the vulnerabilities and circumstances that come with sexuality. Kids are wired to carry out this exploration on their own. Can adults—can the church—consciously bless and prepare them for the perilous and delightful journey that lay ahead?

Gratitude for Charlie Sheen

I prefer Martin Sheen to Charlie Sheen.

In fact, I prefer his brother Emilio Estevez as well. The wayward son of the dignified actor and Catholic social justice activist has of late demonstrated what appears to be mental illness, and the press is hitting him with a fervor it hasn’t enjoyed since the OJ days.

Granted, Sheen has a penchant for drama and hyperbole. He loves to hear himself speak. And on the annoyance meter, he has surpassed Tom Cruise, and has perhaps matched Mel Gibson. But before we jump on the haters bandwagon, perhaps we can take some time to see a little of ourselves in Charlie Sheen’s raging ego. Let’s look at some recent quotes of his.

“I am special, and I will never be one of you.”

Most adults would never say this. But there are times, when we are feeling defensive, when this thought pops up like an unwelcome Netflix ad on our computer screen. To say, “I will never be one of you” is to also say, “You will never be one with me.” Separateness and alienation from each other is one of humanity’s most grave illnesses. How does it feel?

“The only thing I’m addicted to is winning.”

If one has an underdeveloped sense of self, winning at something can provide a needed shot of dignity. However, in the rat race, winning comes at a cost. For one thing, there is usually a loser if there is a winner. As well, losing or not attempting to win helps establish humility, one of the highest virtues a person can attain.

We should also note Sheen’s use of the word, “addicted.” Addictive behavior is destructive behavior that is indulged in to distract one from unpleasant but important feelings. If one never deals with such feelings—grief, remorse, hunger, loneliness, shame—one will never develop a robust human character; one will not have the capacity for empathy.

"I have one speed... I have one gear—Go!"

True, most of us don't go on epic benders, "banging seven-gram rocks and finishing them," but how often do we get so caught up in what we're doing—our "one gear—Go!"—that we don't stop until our body literally shuts us down? Is there that big a difference between high-stakes partying and workaholism?

"I think the honesty not only shines through in my work, but also my personal life. And I get in trouble for being honest. I'm extremely old-fashioned. I'm a nobleman. I'm chivalrous."

And you are so luminous that you don’t cast a shadow.

Whenever one says “I am” and follows it with a positive attribute, such as “awesome,” “honest,” “generous,” “talented,” etc., it needs to be said with humility and the knowledge that one is “not-that” at the same time. I am honest and I am a liar. I am talented here but inept there. I am awesome but I am an idiot. I’m chivalrous but I wish to manipulate you by having you feel guilty or obligated to me.

In the same way, if one is given to self-hatred and would disparage himself or herself, the positive attributes are in the shadow realm. I am stupid and I am also brilliant. I am unfaithful but I am also loyal. I am lazy but I am also disciplined.

Owning your shadow is tough work, but it’s absolutely essential if one is to be a highly functioning human being.

"They'll wake up one day and realize how cool dad is. And, you know, signs all the checks on the front, not the back. And you know, we need him and we need his wisdom and his bitchin'-ness."

There’s a shadow side to love: that if I do something for good you, then you must love me back, or that you will do what I want you to do, behave how I want you to behave, or be who I want you to be. A wise man I once worked with shared with me how he was raising his young son to be self-sufficient and powerful, not so that he could take care of his father but so that he could take care of his own children.

Love never comes from a person; rather, it flows through each person and is either received or it isn’t. Like water, it continually moves and is either absorbed or keeps flowing.

So, a little compassion for Charlie Sheen might be in order. And maybe even a little gratitude for the mirror he presents us with, if only we are willing to look into it.

Intimacy-building skills as a block to intimacy

Organizing the Portland Tantric Meetup, which I've been doing since summer of 2008, has been quite an interesting journey. Holding myself accountable for the growth and direction of this group has of course required that I pay close attention to my own growth and direction.

Most of us are attracted to the tantric path because we want to bring greater consciousness to our sexuality; because we want to bring sexuality to our spirituality; because we seek healing from shame, emotional or spiritual wounds; and because we deeply wish to connect with others whom we hope to meet along this path. Certainly, all of these longings may play a part together.

Whereas I primarily came to tantra to find a spiritual path where I wouldn't be at war with my body, I also wanted to connect with others who shared my values—women, primarily! And as I became more and more grounded in the practices and expanded awareness that tantra provides, I found that indeed, it was much easier for me to connect and form beautiful connections with women I would meet at pujas, workshops, and other events.

But as I have more recently committed to someone in a monogamous relationship, I see that I used my own "tantric skills" and ability to connect as a tool to actually prevent myself from connecting the way I really wanted to—to hold true intimacy at bay. I could attain a beautiful, heart-centered space with anyone (my ego loved that), but love has required me to go deeper, where I am called to delve deeply into my own fear and vulnerability. I also found that the best "tantric skill" I've developed was the willingness to breathe and step courageously into the fire I knew would burn me and strip away parts my ego that keep me from intimacy.

To know how to relate to one's own ego is at the HEART of any true tantric practice—indeed any true spiritual practice. That's why I am presenting "Dancing with the Ego" a week from now (Monday, March 7, at Motion Massage in Portland). It doesn't matter whether you know much about tantra or not: knowing where you are in your dance with your ego will help benefit you right here, right now. We're all in this together!

A quick plug for my spiritual mentoring and healing sessions: I'm available. I'd love to work with you. More here.