Matthew Fox - Creation theology, joy, work

Matthew Fox

I just posted an article on Philip Jenkins, whom we might categorize as a conservative Catholic. I heard that interview on Tapestry, the weekly CBC program on religious and spiritual affairs. I often get interesting and inspirational ideas from this program, which investigates currents in various spiritual traditions, ones that would mostly otherwise go unnoticed.

The week before (May 16), there was an interview with Matthew Fox, the former Dominican priest who was famously fired in 1993 by the Catholic Church for refusing to toe the Vatican line. Even though that makes two Catholics in a row, Tapestry is not about Catholicism, but about all kinds of spirituality.



Fox is particularly known for his "creation spirituality," which I guess the Catholics felt was a little too close to pantheism. He is now the head of the Institute of Culture and Creation Spirituality in Oakland, a prolific writer, and influential person in liberal Catholic circles, especially those oriented to ecology.

Fox said many good things, and indeed there was much that concurred with the way I have been thinking about Krishna consciousness and the ways that we have to move forward. So what I write here has rather more to do with Krishna consciousness than with Fox specifically.

Amongst the ideas I found useful were "fusion spirituality" and "rituals of joy."

"Fusion spirituality" is a difficult concept for religious conservatives to accept. Fox says that in fact we should all write "etc." after our affiliation, because all of us have been influenced to a greater or lesser degree by some tradition outside our own. This is the post-modern era, and no one can claim to be pure and adulterated. In this world of wide communications, we are all breathing Buddhist or Muslim atoms in the air; we’re all mixed to some extent, and are merely pretending to be entirely unique or pure. Thus we build moats and thick walls around ourselves, accentuating differences rather than the universally common goals and aspirations of spirituality. Fox says that such a defensive position goes against the tide of history.

But stressing our common heritage does not mean that we are to reject our own personal traditions. We need to anchor ourselves in the basic concepts and insights, symbolic language and sets of meanings of our own tradition. Nevertheless, we must be open to the challenges that opposing insights might bring to our understanding of our own tradition. This is the way that we grow and progress.

The principal common feature of nearly all religions is that of anti-materialism. Fox condemns the "Nike in the psyche" consumerist indoctrination that everyone in the West undergoes from babyhood onward. This has to be countered by a spirituality that is full of joy. Fox talks about the importance of meditation, which "calms the reptilian brains." "Spiritual practices," he says, "flush out the toxins."

He himself has engaged in the "renewal of ritual" by initating what he calls "joy dancing," a sort of spiritual rave. He says that this provides a venue for the young, who unfortunately look to drugs and consumerism instead of spirituality to find joy.

Fox likes to quote Thomas Aquinas, “Sheer joy is God’s and this demands companionship.”

The reason for the Universe itself is the joy of God. What he means is that because of divine joy, the Universe is born, because God wanted company. You don’t want to be joyful alone. God wanted to share the joy of being God and out of that sharing, the Universe was born.

Much of what Fox resonated strongly with my Hindu understanding of religion.

From joy I came,
For joy I live,
and in Thy sacred joy
I shall melt again.

Prabhupada said, "Chant, dance and be happy." Fox's statements about youth and drugs made me rethink the "stay high forever" theme, which I criticized recently on these forums. A simplistic perspective on joy is a failure of understanding, but nevertheless, congregationally, we should be aware that we are participating in the Divine Joy.

In his latest book, The Reinvention Of Work, Fox also talks about work in the light of his creation spirituality : "Daily work connects us to the universe. The work of the universe is how to alleviate suffering."

At any rate, from a Foxian perspective, it would seem to me that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's religion has a great deal going for it already. But we must remember that we are not "against" other religions, but their allies in the great work of bringing joy. We seek insight into joy (rasa) from the unique perspective of Rupa and Raghunath.

More on joy.

I know there are prominent catholics espousing Panentheism as well ( which is what we teach). Pantheism has been quite popular for a while among catholic priests, Fox is not alone in the Catholic priesthood, like I mentioned earlier there is a strong strain of Mayavadi thought among many priests especially among the jesuits, really what Fox teaches is your basic neo vedanta mayavadi, almost exactly like them: Ramakrishna, Yogananda etc., the syncretic version of melding religious teachings with an emphasis on the Pantheistic impersonal, his writings seem almost identical to that milieu, like the Yogananda verse you quote

"From joy I came, For joy I live, and in Thy sacred joy I shall melt again."

Is that from a sastric source as well ?

I know Michael Jackson used a version of it :

Immortality's my game
From Bliss I came
In Bliss I am sustained
To Bliss I return
If you don't know it now
It's a shame
Are you listening?

This body of mine
Is a flux of energy
In the river of time
Eons pass, ages come and go
I appear and disappear
Playing hide-and-seek
In the twinkling of an eye

I am the particle
I am the wave
Whirling at lightning speed
I am the fluctuation
That takes the lead
I am the Prince
I am the Knave
I am the doing
That is the deed
I am the galaxy, the void of space
In the Milky Way
I am the craze

I am the thinker, the thinking, the thought
I am the seeker, the seeking, the sought
I am the dewdrop, the sunshine, the storm
I am the phenomenon, the field, the form
I am the desert, the ocean, the sky
I am the Primeval Self
In you and I

Pure unbounded consciousness
Truth, existence, Bliss am I.
In infinite expressions I come and go
Playing hide-and-seek
In the twinkling of an eye
But immortality's my game

Eons pass
Deep inside
I remain
Ever the same
From Bliss I came
In Bliss I am sustained

I did not know that Michael Jackson found inspiration in the Upanishads. Interesting.

As to whether Catholicism entertains pantheism, I refer you to the Catholic Encyclopedia, which gives a rather detailed critique.

As achintya-bhedabheda-vadis, we are fundamentally more pantheistic than most Christians, despite our anthropomorphic theism. But philosophical pantheism is so prevalent in the West that it has naturally influenced theology, just as all-pervading Advaita doctrine in the Upanishads and elsewhere firmly roots Vaishnava theism in Brahmavada.

Loosely stated, Christianity is a combination of Jewish theism and Greek philosophical pantheism. But historically, it has always asserted its theism over Gnostic, neo-Platonic or Eckhartian type pantheisms.

But I strongly suspect you, Shivaji, of frequenting fundamentalist anti-Catholic propaganda sites like this one: Religious counterfeits. So I do wonder whether you know what you are talking about or are just parrotting something you picked up somewhere.

I believe he said panentheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

First uh..no I dont frequent anti catholic sites, but I do read books by catholic priests.

Secondly we are panentheistic, not pantheistic, many jews are also panentheistic as well as native americans and various people within various christian sects.

Yes Michael Jackson has used the upanishads:

Two Birds

It's hard to tell them what I feel for you. They haven't ever met you, and no one has your picture. So how can they ever understand your mystery? Let's give them a clue:

Two birds sit in a tree. One eats cherries, while the other looks on. Two birds fly through the air. One's song drops like crystal from the sky while the other keeps silent. Two birds wheel in the sun. One catches the light on its silver feathers, while the other spreads wings of invisibility.

It's easy to guess which bird I am, but they'll never find you. Unless...

Unless they already know a love that never interferes, that watches from beyond, that breathes free in the invisible air. Sweet bird, my soul, your silence is so precious. How long will it be before the world hears your song in mine?

Oh, that is a day I hunger for!

There are two birds sitting on the tree of the body. One of them is trying to eat the fruits of the tree, and the other is just watching. The first bird is suffering, but when he turns his attention to the other bird, he will be freed from this unhappiness.

[ Mundaka Upanishad 3.1 ]

The individual soul and the Supreme Soul are like two friendly birds sitting on the same tree. One of the birds is eating the fruit of the tree and the other bird is not trying to eat these fruits, but is simply watching His friend.

Although the two birds are on the same tree, the eating bird is fully engrossed with anxiety as the enjoyer of the fruits of the tree. But if in some way or other he turns his attention to his friend who is the Lord and knows His glories, at once the suffering bird becomes free from all anxieties.

[ Svetasvatara Upanishad 4.6-7 ]

Also the Gita he quotes :

Heaven Is Here

You and I were never separate
It's just an illusion
Wrought by the magical`lens of
Perception

There is only one Wholeness
Only one Mind
We are like ripples
In the vast Ocean of Consciousness

Come, let us dance
The Dance of Creation
Let us celebrate
The Joy of Life

The birds, the bees
The infinite galaxies
Rivers, Mountains
Clouds and Valleys
Are all a pulsating pattern
Living, breathing
Alive with cosmic energy
Full of Life, of Joy
This Universe of Mine
Don't be afraid
To know who you are
You are much more
Than you ever imagined

You are the Sun
You are the Moon
You are the wildflower in bloom
You are the Life-throb
That pulsates, dances
From a speck of dust
To the most distant star

And you and I
Were never separate
It's just an illusion
Wrought by the magical lens of
Perception

Let us celebrate
The Joy of Life
Let us dance
The Dance of Creation

Curving back within ourselves
We create
Again and again
Endless cycles come and go
We rejoice
In the infinitude of Time

There never was a time
When I was not
Or you were not
There never will be a time
When we will cease to be

Infinite – Unbounded
In the Ocean of Consciousness
We are like ripples
In the Sea of Bliss

You and I were never separate
It's just an illusion
Wrought by the magical lens of
Perception

Heaven is Here
Right now is the moment
of Eternity
Don't fool yourself
Reclaim your Bliss

Once you were lost
But now you're home
In a nonlocal Universe
There is nowhere to go
From Here to Here
Is the Unbounded
Ocean of Consciousness

We are like ripples
In the Sea of Bliss
Come, let us dance
The Dance of Creation
Let us celebrate
The Joy of Life

And
You and I were never separate
It's just an illusion
Wrought by the magical lens of
Perception

Heaven is Here
Right now, this moment of Eternity
Don't fool yourself
Reclaim your Bliss

From this interview we can discern a strong influence of De Chardin's omega point doctrine :

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/science/omega.html


David: And science makes this incredibly audacious assumption that the universe is governed by fixed mathematical laws that never change.

Matthew: Right. Our generation has been taught to think in terms of the evolution of the universe, but the fact is that physics didn't get into evolution until the 1960's - it was just this biology thing. Then we learned how the universe is evolving. Now we're going a step further and understanding that even the laws that govern the universe are evolving!


Rebecca: You talk in Original Blessing about the need for a personal relationship with God, yet when many people think about that idea it's often anthropomorphic and sometimes trivializes the experience of God. Do you believe in a personal God and if so how does this belief act so as to encompass the vastness of spiritual experience?

Matthew: I reject the notion of talking about God as a person, but there's a difference between talking about God as a person and talking about God as personal. The term I use is pantheistic - everything is in God and God is in everything. That's pretty intimate, but it doesn't mean that we don't have to find our own way and do our own creating. I see the universe as a Divine womb and we're all swimming around in this soup.

I think eyes are very revealing. I was with a student who was dying of AIDS about two years ago. He had beautiful blue eyes and just before he died, his eyes went totally black and he sucked me into this vortex. This is just one example of the presence of the Divine showing itself through people.

Eckhart says, "the eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me." So when I used to look into the eyes of my dog, I saw so much mystery there, so much more than he could tell me or wanted to tell me. I see things in eyes that are mysterious and unfathomable.


David: What do you personally feel happens to human consciousness after biological death?

Matthew: Well, I don't think that any beauty is lost in the universe. Hildegard of Bingen says, no warmth is lost in the universe. Einstein said, no energy's lost. I think that the beauty hangs around. Rupert Sheldrake would call this the morphic resonance and the Christian tradition would call it the Communion of Saints, the East might call it the incarnation.

David: Do you think that there's an aspect of yourself which still contains some of it's individuality and continues on?

Matthew: I wouldn't put it that way myself. Eckhart says, `when I return to the source, the core, the fountain of the Godhead, no one will ask what I've been doing. No one will have missed me.' What he's really saying is that there's no judgment.


David: What role do you think consciousness plays in the evolution of the universe?

Matthew: I think that God is the mind of the universe. I don't think there's any other explanation for the accomplishments of the universe except for mind consciousness.

David: Do you equate consciousness with spirit?

Matthew: Partly. I think that spirit includes consciousness but that consciousness does not necessarily include all of spirit. The word consciousness is a little too psychological for me, a little too anthropocentric.

Rebecca: Do you see a Divine plan in nature?

Matthew: A Divine plan?

Rebecca: Yeah. It's a very popular idea right now especially with all this millennial energy getting stirred up, that we're all on our way somewhere.(laughter)

Matthew: Well, let's see, there's the American Way...(laughter) Science has confirmed that there's order in the universe as well as chaos. What's really interesting is that order comes out of the chaos - which is the creative process. You need the Via Negativa and chaos before you can get creative.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He is not a real catholic but wants to change the church to His way of thinking, as did De Chardin, but when you take God as Personal/ Jesus-as-God-Himself out of catholicism you might as well forget about changing the church using their traditions.

Fox and De Chardin both have the peculiar syncretic new agey version of quasi neo vedanta, the idea of God as Brahman is used but with the added element of the evolution of the God/Universe, the omega point is when this cosmic evolution reaches the endgame and all becomes ONE in perfection, it's a very murky philosophy and reminds me of the saying "jack of all trades, master of none".

His ideas on joy or bliss are coming from some kind of consciousness of Awe and mystery, the "faroutness" of the cosmos and the mysterious possibilites of cosmic consciousness or the like, its really not anything like Vaisnava ideas of personal communion directly with the personality of Godhead being the cause of bliss.

I find myself much more tolerant of different ideas like Fox's. I find it somewhat arrogant for anyone to think that he or she has the only vision of Divine Truth. And anyone who has found wonder and meaning in the creation, and has as a result been motivated to act to bring wonder and meaning to others is to me a marvel and a servant of God.

And where I can profit from that insight to further my own wonder and sense of meaning in my own chosen path, I take it.

I don't expect anyone to be a Krishna bhakta, or to even have a corresponding concept. Even the Christ as God personalism is rarely if ever the same as Krishna bhakti. So I never read anything expecting anyone to be a one-to-one correspondence to anything I believe. Rather, I usually look for something to agree with.

As far as panentheism and pantheism are concerned, you did say, I believe, that Fox is a pantheist, though he himself claims to be a panentheist. Like most modern theologians, Fox considers this world to be the significant field of activities, and leaves the next world to take care of itself.

I must admit that I am finding this line of thought very reasonable. To me, Krishna consciousness must have meaning here in this world. If the only line of thought we have is "I am not this body; this world is Maya," then I don't think that we have any more chance of surviving than the Shakers. I think that most mysticisms ultimately send you back into the world to find meaning there. It's not that meaning only exists outside the world, but it exists in every atom of existence.

The kanistha adhikari is one who only sees God localized. The uttama adhikari is the one who sees him everywhere. The madhyama adhikari is the one who is intellectually aware of the latter, but continues to frame himself in the activities of the former; it's a kind of dual culture.

As far as the "Omega Point" and other theories of divine evolution--you don't seem to like them very much. Other than that they are "new-agey" what is your problem with them? Maybe you could clarify your critique. Do you not think that they can be accomodated within a theistic or devotional conception?

Fox is confused, He really teaches pantheism but sometimes calls that panentheism:

"Panentheism is desperately neeeded by individual and religious institutions today. It is the way the creation-centered tradition of spirituality experiences God. It is not theistic because it does not relate to God as subject or object, but neither is it pantheistic. Panentheism is a way of seeing the world sacramentally. The primary sacrament is creation itself-which includes every person and being who lives."

"I reject the notion of talking about God as a person, but there's a difference between talking about God as a person and talking about God as personal. The term I use is pantheistic - everything is in God and God is in everything. That's pretty intimate, but it doesn't mean that we don't have to find our own way and do our own creating. I see the universe as a Divine womb and we're all swimming around in this soup. "

You can't have it both ways.

He is confused so He makes contradictory statements, clearly He is against the idea of a personal God, yet claims to be a panentheist at times, which posits a personal God who is everything in the material cosmos and also transcendental to it.

This is why I compare him to the neo vedantists, they also have a confusing mish mosh of pantheistic mayavada and panentheistic personalism, Ramakrishna for example.

So his claims of Panentheism are at odds with His stated beliefs

"Then we learned how the universe is evolving. Now we're going a step further and understanding that even the laws that govern the universe are evolving!"

This is De Chardins theory as well, it is a kind of wierd mayavadi, it is certainly not panentheism, you have to have a personal God in panentheism and you cannot have an evolving cosmos either.

Since Fox discounts God as a person although says the understanding you have can be personal this can be considered not true panentheism, this is simple logic that of course eludes all mayavadis, how can a non person create the material cosmos ? An intellect is required to create, which means a person is required to have an intellect, yet Fox does not subscribe to God being a person, so panentheism is not possible in that worldview, He can call it that but really Advaita Vedanta mixed with neo vedanta mixed with Omega point doctrine is what He espouses. He posits the evolution of natures laws, this means that there is no transcendant being controlling nature, nature is running on it's own chaotic course evolving as it goes.

Panentheism requires a transcendent God beyond the material cosmos, if that is not a person then He is really just preaching mayavadi i.e Brahman.

Mayavadi is not panentheistic because they believe this world is illusory, thats not panentheism which says that this world is comprised of God and is real.

And since mayavadi dogma is irrational due to a non intellect not having any capacity for thought or creativity or control over destiny after death, we can conclude that Fox is one confused guy.

His views are irrational views having God as some kind of cosmic energy evolving with ourselves as part of that God/cosmos, it's not really pure pantheism nor pure panentheism, but much closer to pantheism and really just irrational at it's core.

It is really mayavadi in a christian new agey context, God is a "thing" or energy, and not an actual thinking person, and in fact Fox subscribes to evolutionary theory as well, as did De Chardin.

The problem with these ideas of course is that for God to have any meaning beyond being some kind off power source is that God needs to have the ability to affect change and impose His will over this world, without being a person there is no question of intellect or will so God cannot affect change nor impose will, rather Fox espouses as does De Chardin as others of their ilk that we are the stuff of change, it is our role as part of the evolving God/cosmos that is the central conscious aspect of reality, although like some Mayavadis He likes to talk about the "mind of the universe" which is irrational because a non personal God cannot have a mind, a mind means a thinking thing, which means a person.

This is really pantheism, not panentheism, without a conscious God, a person, there is no active participation with an agenda by a "God", really God is just a word to describe some kind of mysterious sub quantum energy in their ideology, and therefore "God" is just another aspect of nature, God and nature are one and God is the sub quantum root or potential of nature, pantheism with a twist.

And "spirituality" really for these guys is all about morality and ethics and awe and reverence of the mysteries and possibilites, it is about personal transformation, really it is more psychology and the related personal tranformation=cosmic tranformation=social transformation rather then revelatory communion centric spirituality.

Yes I was introduced to Fox over a decade ago when he was all the rage. At that time I was told by his followers 'Augustine is the enemy who introduced misogyny into the tradition...' I believed that at first. Then I read Augustine and saw he leaves Fox looking like a fanatical cultist riding a wave of populism. I'll take Augustine any day.

Nowadays I am wary of any such totalistic rejection or radical reform of any longstanding tradition.

It seems to me that the results of all such revolutionary changes have been disastrous, from the French Revolution thru any number of more recent ones. That's all I've got to say about conservatism versus 'progress'.

That's all? We'll see...

I have been very influenced my Matt Fox. I read a number of books by him and heard him speak in person several times. He played a major role in allowing me to bridge the gap between Vaishnavism and Christianity. I used his book The Coming of the Cosmic Christ as the basis for my Christology paper in seminary.

Yes, he does have a bit of an impersonalist bent, but on the whole, he is an important seminal thinker of our time. His panentheistic perspective is comparable to seeing Krishna in everything. His ability to combine the teachings of the various mystical, wisdom traditions has influenced me in my own approach to spirituality in an eclectic manner. As Jagat points out, we live in a very electic world. Why not take the best of everything and benefit from it?

Fox's book Original Blessing provides a life affirming view which helped me become more incarnational and able to enjoy life in this world while I am here rather than trying to transcend all the time. I believe God put us here for a purpose more than just trying to leave and go to a better place. As long as we live here, let's enjoy the blessings God has given us. I try to live in the constant awareness of God's presence everywhere. I live as a servant of Krishna in this world and try to manifest the mood of Vrindaban here. When we become comfortable with ourselves, our bodies, minds, intellect, surroundings, companions, etc., it is much more like the spiritual world and conducive to devotion rather than having a dualistic attitude and rejecting material existence as pure illusion. I tried the path of renunciation and found it to be artificial. I am more comfortable being in the world but not of it. I know my eternal home is in the spiritual world of Goloka Vrindaban, but this life is a great gift also and should not be rejected.

I know I have grown, matured and benefited by the study of various spiritual paths. I accept wisdom wherever it is found. I look for sanatan dharma or the eternal religion in all teachings and that is the touchstone I use to measure their truth and beauty. Try not to be too narrow and judgmental of others. There is still much we can learn. No one has an exclusive lock on God.

Greetings Subhalji. Nice comments. My own academic studies tended to challenge easy universalising, an approach which fitted my own perceptions. I've never been satisfied with harmony which might be superficial, seeking rather a deeper truth. So while I agree with you up to a point, I think there are differences which make a difference.

How would you deal with Alasdair MacIntyre's presentation of Nietzsche's challenge ? :-

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9608/oakes.html


* "When Kant finds that there is a deep incompatibility between any account of action which recognizes the role of moral imperatives in governing action and any . . . mechanical type of explanation, he is compelled to the conclusion that actions obeying and embodying moral imperatives must be from the standpoint of science inexplicable and unintelligible." ....

Once this is realized, the career of moral philosophy after Kant makes perfect sense. "Kant's failure provided Kierkegaard with his starting point: the act of choice had to be called in to do the work that reason could not do." This act is literally pre-ethical, since it precedes the living out of a moral life: one first decides to be ethical, and then one is. Kierkegaard shares with Kant the assumption that being moral inevitably involves a struggle to thwart the impulses of human nature, which by definition must tug the agent in the direction of aesthetic indulgence-and where does ethics derive the authority to make me go against my feelings? Kierkegaard by and large avoided the question, for to face it would be to expose the central flaw in his thought. His title Either/Or is telling, for (as MacIntyre observes) the book's doctrine "is plainly to the effect that the principles which depict the ethical way of life are to be adopted for no reason."

To which Nietzsche would have replied, "Precisely." Nietzsche's great merit for MacIntyre is his ability to see this contradiction and to proclaim its consequences-serving for MacIntyre as "the canary in the coal mine," the signal of the despair awaiting us in the twentieth century. ....

Nietzsche has performed the inestimable service of exposing contemporary moral presuppositions as the fictions they are: "If there is nothing to morality but expressions of will, my morality can only be what my will creates."

In one especially amusing comparison, MacIntyre likens Nietzsche to King Kamehameha II, who in a single stroke abolished the taboo system on the Hawaiian islands in 1819. Even in the previous century, visitors like Captain Cook could get from the native population no satisfactory answer to the question why certain items were "taboo"-or even what taboo meant. By the time of Kamehameha, the whole system had lost its hold on the people. If the natives had had the 'benefits' of Anglo-Saxon philosophy at the time, MacIntyre wryly observes, they could have come up with the answer: "Had the Polynesian culture enjoyed the blessings of analytical philosophy, it is all too clear that the question of the meaning of taboo could have been resolved in a number of ways. Taboo, it would have been said by one party, is clearly the name of a non-natural property. . . . Another party would doubtless have argued that 'This is taboo' means roughly the same as 'I disapprove of this; do so as well.'" And so on.

What is missing from this surreal post-catastrophe debate is any sense of how the word "taboo" (that is: bad) got disengaged from its original context. And emotivism is the key to how our own moral words became disengaged-and the key as well to why our own debates are so shrill. How could they not be, since emotion is the substance of moral conversation? This is why the prose style of both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche seems so overheated, compared with Aristotle's or Aquinas'. And it is also why the decibel level of political debate is so extraordinarily high. We have achieved, MacIntyre laments, Nietzsche's prediction of "Great Politics":


"It is easy also to understand why protest becomes a distinctive moral feature of the modern age and why indignation is a predominant modern emotion. . . . Protest is now almost entirely that negative phenomenon which characteristically occurs as a reaction to the alleged invasion of someone's rights in the name of someone else's utility. The self-assertive shrillness of protest arises because . . . protestors can never win an argument: the indignant self-righteousness of protest arises because . . . the protestors can never lose an argument either. Hence the utterance of protest is characteristically addressed to those who already share the protestors' premises. . . . Protestors rarely have anyone else to talk to but themselves. This is not to say that protest cannot be effective; it is to say that it cannot be rationally effective." *

Namaste Adiyenji,

I do not accept "easy universalising." I rankle at impersonalist rhetoric which often casually equates the individual living entity with God. I oppose fundamentalist interpretations of religion. I oppose religious traditions that oppress their followers. I find no one spiritual/religious tradition which I can totally embrace without some disagreement. Differences do make a difference. However, using a smorgasborg approach, I accept the things I agree with and leave the rest, sometimes pointing out my reasons why.

On Thursday evenings, I present a class in devotional yoga including chanting and Bhagavad Gita study. On Sunday mornings, I lead an eclectic worship service which draws on the world's great spiritual traditions. I find this to be very exciting and stimulating. It allows me to draw on a lifetime of personal spiritual growth and the wisdom of the ages which I sort through lifting up certain things and leaving the rest.

I am not a very erudite scholar, especially when it comes to Western philosophy. However, like Nietzsche, I reject moral presuppositions and like King Kamehameha II seek to abolish the taboo system. Yet, I embrace a strong ethical position and act on the basis of those ethics.

I am an intuitive and act on the basis on intuition more than rational intellect. I am a simple frontline mystic and preacher working in the Midwestern United States. I am a spiritual reformer coming in a long tradition of reformers whether it be the line of Chaitanya Nityananda, Calvin or Matthew Fox. My goal is to present a spirituality that works for intelligent 21st century Westerners. I am an iconoclastic anarchist and embrace personal freedom and choice. I welcome the new and refuse to be bound by the past.