Comments (47)

Ashtanga Yoga - Eight Path Yoga - is a true work of Hindu spiritual genius, and Christians stand to gain immensely by learning about it and putting it into practice. Christianity is a combination of Bakhti (devotional) and Karma (work) yoga: devotion to Jesus and obedience to His command to love in action must go together.

As afterthought to the blogger who posted as "Bhagvan Rajneesh" alias "Osho," the late Indian sex-guru:

Tantra as a spiritual practice is NOT mainstream in Hinduism. In fact it is considered a dangerous practice to indulge in without the strictest guidance by an experienced and truly enlightened guru. Since its dangers are extremely great if practiced wrongly (and it is much easier to get it WRONG rather than right) it is generally NOT recommended by mainstream Hindus. Tantra is NOT about practising free sex, as is erraneously interpreted by the "sex-mad" lay person.

Bagvan Rajneesh's experiment with tantra yoga was a complete disaster.

Re your comment that sex is good for the heart and soul: Sex is about as uplifting for the heart and soul as food is. In other words, sex is about as spiritual an exercise as eating food. Sex in addition to being essential to reproduction fulfills an emotional need in the context of a companionship. However the main reason people are obsessed about sex is because of its capacity to produce pleasure. There is nothing selfless about sex, just as there is nothing selfless about eating food. We eat food for the health of our body and we indulge in sex for pleasure. Reproduction is one of the lesser byproducts of that pleasure (after all a even the most fertile woman can conceive only so many times in her whole life even if she started to have babies from the onset of menarchy and continued right up to her menopause).

People of any religion who have practiced celibacy with dedication are proof that our need for sex is not the same as our need for food. We can live without sex if we must, but unless the sexual energy is consciously transformed into spiritual energy, one tends to lack emotional balance and health.

The soul has no gender and hence has no sexual needs.

Sorry, JJ, if you're just going to keep spamming, they'll delete even your reasonable-sized posts.

Thought we had some good banter going there the other night....

Guess what, though.

It's you.

Wouldn't the big pointy hat get in the way?

Seriously, this is a reactionary Pope taking the Chruch backwards.

Catholics have hijacked Christ's table using it to manipulate their own politically. Whose table is it? Christ's or the Chruch's? Who offers the invitation to the table? Christ, or the Church based on it man made requisites? Until Catholics welcome all to Christ's table, there is no interfaith effort only parochial exclusion that is not at all Christ like.

Dear Dr Shriver

You are right, we ought to bring the religion in our heads to the heart and work at ways to transform ourselves into persons who truly live by the command to love God, ourselves and others.

Mystics of all religions have shown the way in the most powerful way possible.

Hatha yoga is first of all about physical health (one is not expected to sweat while doing yoga! "Surya Namaskar" or "Sun worship" is the exercise you referred to), to make the body a good instrument in the service of God. Hating the body is definitely a terrible and counter-productive interpretation of religion. The celibates of the Catholic church have overdone their zeal for God by advocating hatred for the body. That needs to change. But worshiping the body is the other extreme of course. Moderation is the answer.

There are plenty of Catholic priests who have opened themselves to other faiths and thereby enriched their own.

Whether the Pope really needs a yoga challenge? I am convinced God uses different ways to lead different people. As long as the Pope doesn't condemn the practice of yoga by Christians in general and Catholics in particular, that is good enough. I have not yet heard that he does. I must say that the Catholic Church is really quite generous in its acceptance of wisdom from other faiths. I have known several Catholic priests who were actively involved with other religions.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

"Bhagwan Rajneesh" wrote (7 April 2008 1:45 PM):

"I also invite him to try tantric yoga and perhaps kamasutra. Both good for heart and soul.

I still do not understand why religion and physical pleasure (sex) can not mix?"

Bhagavan Rajneesh follower:

Might you be really meaning "Why can't sex be considered religion?" All religions (just in case you have forgotten) allow sex within marriage and Kamasutra is best used as a sex manual by married couples. Marriage is accepted as the norm for all human beings. Celibacy is freely chosen only by a few, in order to devote their lives selflessly in the pursuit of God-knowledge or selfless service to humanity - unencumbered by family concerns. The tradition of celibacy exists not only in Catholicism but also in Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism.

BTW, when Kundalini energy is awakened by any intense spiritual practice, in a person who is not spiritually prepared (usually with a long period of celibacy preceding the experience and/or strict rules regarding sexual practice), it tends to go haywire, and the person becomes "sex-mad." Everything is then interpreted in terms of the sexual - the sex instinct serves like a gutter into which everything runs.

TO GRAMMADEBI:

Jesus said, "Simon thou art Peter and upon this rock, I will build MY Church", not only is Peter a rock but we are all called to be rocks.

You wrote, "For a time after Jesus' death, the apostles continued to perform miracles, speak in tongues and see visions (Acts 2:43) as further proof that they were indeed God's inspired speakers. However, the Bible contains no indication that anyone other than the apostles were given these gifts.", Jesus said that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide us into all Truth and He meant what He said, the Holy Spirit is for us as in even today.

You also wrote, "One may ask, "if the Bible is so specific about HIS church, why do we have so many differently-organized, differently-governed, differently-named "churches"? That is a very good question", and something for you to think about, didn't Jesus also say, "I Am the Vine, you are the branches."?

By the way, call oneself a "Christian" does not necessarily mean that one is, because as it says if one has ears to hear, The True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

It is important what you do and why you do it and what you know.

God gives different 'jobs' to different people just as it says in the bible.

When Jesus said to Peter, "Simon thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build MY Church", He also said, "and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it", did He Not? This is the mission of His Church.

On the cross, Jesus said, "Father forgive them, they know not what they do", there is no * after them, is it?

Jesus extended an invitation to us when He said, "Take up your cross and come follow Me", did He not?

Some people say that Christian are Easter people, are we not also called to be "Good Friday" people?

You also wrote, "When Jesus died on the cross, the law of the Old Testament ended and a new law described for us in the New Testament was set into motion", the Old Testament law was written in stone but the New Law is to be written on our hearts because the Old Law and the New Law is the same, the Law is God Himself, LOVE. Remember when Jesus said, "I have not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill It".

God has a Plan and has had His Plan since before creation and God becoming One of us, Jesus [God-Incarnate], is just part of His Plan and it is unfolding before our very eyes.

Something to think about.

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth].

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Of course only those who believe that the Bible is the divine revelation will appreciate what I'm speaking of, when I refer to followers of Christ as the "church". The "church" is not a specific group of people that meet on Sunday mornings at 9 am to sing and pray. The "church" as Jesus defined it, is the ones who choose to accept God and follow Jesus' teachings.

HIS church was built on Jesus - not on any other man, woman, child or thing. Jesus suffered and died so that you and I could have an opportunity to live in Heaven one day. No other person did that. From reading Matt 16:15-18, some say Jesus built HIS church on Peter, but if you read further in that same chapter, you find it is impossible for such a conclusion to stand as accurate. In the remainder of Matthew 16, Jesus goes on to clarify that HIS church is built on Peter's confession that Jesus is God's son, not on Peter or any other person. One basis for this misconception is that the name "Peter" comes from the Greek word "petros" which means "a small stone" or "a pebble." However, the Greek word for "rock" used by Jesus when He said, "upon this rock I will build my church," is "petra" which means "large rock" or "bolder," or "cornerstone." If I were to say to you "Put the glass there," I obviously don't mean "Put the glass here." The difference in the words "there" and "here" is the same as the difference in the words "petros" and "petra." For even more clarification, look to I Cor 3:11, where Paul says, "For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" and Eph 2:20, which says, "...Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone."

There is never a reference in the Bible to the New Testament church Jesus' built as belonging to any but Jesus and God. The Bible often says HIS church is HIS body, HIS brethern, HIS people. Nowhere in the Bible is HIS church referred to as Peter's body, or John's church, or Paul's people, or as any person, place or thing belonging to, or named for, anyone but Jesus and God.

In Acts 2, on the day of Pentecost, Christ established HIS church. From that point on, in the New Testament, we read of what that church, HIS church, is made up of, it's purpose, how it is to worship, who can be part of it, how to become a part of it, what it and it's membership are to be called, what doctrine it is to follow, what it's structure is to be, and who is to do what. When Jesus died on the cross, the law of the Old Testament ended and a new law described for us in the New Testament was set into motion (Eph 2:14-16, Heb 10:9). For a time after Jesus' death, the apostles continued to perform miracles, speak in tongues and see visions (Acts 2:43) as further proof that they were indeed God's inspired speakers. However, the Bible contains no indication that anyone other than the apostles were given these gifts. Because we now have the Bible as our complete guide (Matt 15:9, II Tim 3:16-17), and because we are to live by faith (Matt 17:20, II Cor 5:7, Gal 5:6, Eph 2:8, Eph 6:16, Heb 11:1-6), there is no longer a need for such acts or for any other physical evidence of God's love for us.

God gives us the opportunity to take advantage of His great sacrifice, but He does not force it upon us. He gives us free will to choose His way our way, or someone else's way but one day, we will each answer for our own decisions (Rom 14:12, Phil 9:12).

One may ask, "if the Bible is so specific about HIS church, why do we have so many differently-organized, differently-governed, differently-named "churches"? That is a very good question, but one quite simply answered throughout the Bible by the many warnings to all people that there is only one church (I Cor 3:11) made up of "many members" (I Cor 12:19-21) with differences in "activities", (I Cor 12:29-30, Eph 4:11-12) that qualifies as HIS church. Note that the Bible says "one church," doing what God says, not "many denominations" doing what man says. By its definition, "denominationalism" in Funk and Wagnell's Dictionary, "to divide into or to form denominations," HIS church cannot be a denomination (Acts 24:5-14).

There are numerous false teachers, false doctrines and false witnesses (Acts 20:29-31, II John 6:9-10, Col 2:8-10, Heb 3:12-13, Rom 16:17-18, I Tim 4:1-3, II Tim 2:16, II Tim 3:1-5, II Tim 3:13, Titus 1:10-16, James 1:13-20, James 2:7-8, II Pet 1:16) to come, after HIS church was established. The Bible warns us not to follow after anyone, even including an angel, that tells us anything different from what we find in the Bible (Gal 1:6-12). These warnings alone should be enough to convince us that God will not accept any "church" that does not fully conform to His instructions. But, sadly not everyone takes Jesus at His word when he says "not all who say to me, ' Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in Heaven" (Matt 7:21-23, emphasis supplied). Jesus does not continue on to say "as interpreted by the Priest" or "if it is fun" or "if you want to" or any qualifier other than "the will of my Father." If we can do it any ole way we decide to, or any ole way others tell us to, Jesus statement has no meaning. Jesus also asks us, in Luke 6:46, "Why call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?"

Jesus promised to build HIS church (Matt 16:18) and bring all nations into it (Mark 16:15). We know that there is "only one Lord, one faith, one baptism" from Eph 4:4-6. The Bible also says that HIS church is the one body of Christ and Christ is the one head (Eph 5:23-27, Eph 1:22-23, Eph 2:14-16, Eph 3:4-6, Eph 4:4-5, Col 1:18-24, I Cor 12:18-27), and that there is only "one Lawgiver" (James 4:12).

There is only one body, made up of many members (Rom 12:4-5, I Cor 12:19-20) so, if we truly want to be counted as a member of HIS church, we must look to the descriptions of HIS church in the Bible. We must do this without adding anything or taking anything away from God's Word (I Cor 4:6, Rev 22:18-20, John 7:16-19, Acts 5:28-30, Gal 1:6-9). Chirst is the one and only head of HIS church, and all oversight of HIS church rests with Christ alone (Col 1:18-20).

The Bible says to "test all things" (I Thes 5:21) so let's test "churches" and "sects" and others against Bible teachings. Since we are told in Eph 2:14-16 and Heb 10:9 that the death of Christ took away the old law and established the new covenant, we must look to the New Testament for our answers to questions about HIS church.

If we who claim to be Christians, don't proclaim, teach and share the teachings of Christ himself, and thus tell the world that they are fine no matter what they believe, than we have contradicted ourselves by claiming to be Christians. We are to teach out of love for others and to give them the hope that Jesus told us was the ONLY HOPE. If we truly love and believe what we say, we will continue to admonish when we see people not following the Law that God gave us. If we don't believe, or simply don't care about others, it will be easy to say, "anything you believe, I will support".

It's a hoot but I somehow can't imagine Benedict in lotus position chanting "OM" while sweating profusely in a yoga studio. It just doesn't compute. I don't see Papa Pretzel as an image upgrade.

Wow. I can't even read all these posts. They're poison. Talk about hostility and contempt. Why do you all feel so threatened?

Got a pocket mirror, anyone? Look at yourselves!

Am I the only one who thought this post was sort of inane?

You say: ()the famous doctrine of neti-neti is a clear reflection of Buddist teachings.

Not true...it has been part of the Vedic religion (known today as Hinduism). It is found in one of the oldest books of Hinduism (Brihadaaranyak Upanishad), which is said to have been written about 300 years before Buddhism.

and maybe while he's at it he could reverse JP2's scurrilous attack on Buddhism, since the Yoga tradition is widely seen as representing the re-absorption of Buddhist thought into Hinduism. (For example, the famous doctrine of neti-neti is a clear reflection of Buddist teachings.)

Has religion been reduced to a battle between different faiths where sheer numbers count only? Something like Pepsi having a billion faithful and Coke slightly behind??

Given the fact that nobody is frank enough to admit what they are actually doing, this seems likely.

Maybe the Pope should be well advised to admire what all is good about Humanity and not think of converting more, coke/Pepsi style. Remember if Osama had his way, then the entire world should convert to Islam. So if the Pope thinks the same way, then what's wrong with old Osama?

True secularism can only flower if there is some sort of United Nations of religions; where it is not necessary to convert, but admire what is good in the other person's faith.

Yoga of course is a great physical and spiritual medium and is in no conflict with any religion. So the bankers of religion should not get scared that there accounts are about to be transferred elsewhere... :):)

Good one.

If only. :)

Meanwhile... Back in the world of calling unaccountable powers to account, a Catholic said....

Well, blessed be, to you, too, JJ.

I charge you with this. :)

I mean, hey, JJ, whatever you like to fantasize about my sexual orientation, you do realize I have a committed partner and a really painful supposedly-terminal illness?

Even if the objective of our lives was 'sinning,' we wouldn't be getting a lot done.

Just folks.

Trying to live.

We love each other. Kind of a lot.

If you don't mind.

oooppss. April 7th!

That, by the way, is a Gnomon, as well as a No, Man."

K?

See, JJ.

I think that you think that the entire universe needs to bend in some particular way for you to be a loved and valued part of it.

This was never the point. You are loved, more than you know.

You are already home.

Dig?

Ah! LiFE/Photons (to be in & Of) is amiracle in "ITSELF" ('IT', neither A He nor A She').

Praise the HolY No Mons!

And, Hi, again, Photon guy.

*What* am I polluting with *what,* would-be-Einstein? :)

Special Relativity is kind of about being a photon... Problem I see for you is that this has little to do with squishy bits. :)

As an adult, now, I try to be big about the interfaith relations.

Fact is, though, Catholics want to waltz on in and claim authority, ...too bad. You wave a cross in my face, I see a shotgun or someone's cursed-and-sanctified willie.

You should be *glad* the Divine ain't that small.

*Maybe,* if your ego needs to, you could see 'God' as big enough to give a kid in a hard situation another couple of faces to see, and if you need to defend a corrupt institution, at least respect some people's will to not have a cross shoved in their face.

*You* worship a jealous God.

*I* worship ....patient Ones. Ones that got me through the crap you expect people to endure ...on your authority, whatever was done to myself or my friends or my family or me, or *anyone* without *once* demanding I kneel and say 'Lord' or Lady.'

I think, they weren't in a hurry cause that was never the point in the first place.

Kind of funny I have some kind of faith. Strictly speaking, I'm not the type.

But here we are.

No more excuses.

Jesus said, "Why look for the speck in your brother's eye when you have a log in your own."

Irregardless of whether or not anyone believes that Jesus is God-Incarnate, which He Is, this statement of His, which plenty will say He never said, sure does seem to be true, does it not?

It doesn't matter what label people put upon themselves because God does not look at your labeling.

It is important what you do and why you do it and what you know.

Would anyone like to ponder the statement: [I am better than you because you are worse than me.], does this not seem what some people seem to be saying?

Jesus also said something to the effect that we should become child-like not childish, and if you look we are one or the other or a combination of the two.

Take care, be ready, see you [humanity] in the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth] at the dawning of the seventy day, of course the night of the sixth day will come first.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

I mean, hey, it's all in good fun to come here and threaten faceless Internet voices with damnation and all that other good stuff....

Not so funny when you're a kid and don't know any better than to say the wrong thing.

I mean, after all, you can't fault a few bad apples...why, when the much-sainted John Paul wagged a hand through our town, his graceful presence was such that even in my pre-teen life I could notice a great diligence and vigor about the driving out of an Satanic influences in our humble Bostonian home.

It was almost like the touch of his compassionate glance in a general direction had the power to drive good Catholics bug**** about driving out Satanic influences.

It was a world of joy and enlightenment, let me tell you.

"Personal attacks are a hallmark of this poster and have been over many months. This individual should be banned from all On Faith threads."

Yeah, but in the case of a Papal visit, it's topical, for once. :)

Stopped clocks and all. :)

I'm lodging an official complaint against anti-gay postings by a poster who keeps changing his posting name.

This blogger is all over the threads with his maniac abusive drivel and needs to be screened and filtered at all times in order to eliminate these deeply offensive postings.

The 'messages' constitute personal attacks on other posters and in no way should be allowed on a blog that discusses religious issues - either pro, con, or otherwise.

Personal attacks are a hallmark of this poster and have been over many months. This individual should be banned from all On Faith threads.

Please pardon the interlude, there, Catholics, and Mr. Shriver. JJ is probably unwittingly, our bellweather about how dogma plays out, whatever he thinks he's doing.

Still.

JJ.

You are free. K?

Free. Sorry. I know it's hard.

As for Ratzinger, if he wants to bring a 'message' to certain of us, the reply is this:

Defiance.

And small regard.

We're a little past a Pope walking in on a carpet of rose petals and thinking to 'enlighten' people.

This is about, maybe he can make himself useful, if he really tries.

And I'll say to JJ.

If you're sane enough to dodge the slur-filters, you are sane enough to wake up and act like a human being.

I know your religion originated in prison, where male-on-male homosexuality is a function of *aggression,* not love.

But it's hardly "Transfinite" to figure queer-bashing will make you safe, any more than it does any good for priest-molested homophobes who decide rape is a great way to make a girl 'straight' to go attacking 'lesbians.'

Do you understand?

And I'll ask the mods to leave that particular bit of ugly *up,* so those 'more spiritual' people can *see* the ugliness they love to say is 'for our own good.'

"What a Racket!"

You're *allowed* to turn it off, JJ.

Why are you afraod to?

Cause, I'll tell you, Frater. Mr. Shriver.

JJ.

If there's one thing I respect about your Jesus, in this context.

In the name of the dead.

In the name of the maddened.

In the name of the chronically-freaked-out.

In the name of my Catholic ancestors who thought better of your walls and ceremonies.

I'll be the 'millstone,' in part, if that's how you want to play it. Trust me, it's nowhere near my whole life.

Or *someone* in the holy hierarchy could be a *man* and take accountability.

What *you* teach about everyone else's inferiority and need to obey hypocrites, well...

*yawn.*

That how you really want it to go down?

Don't look at me.

Let my people go.

You might find instead some friends and neighbors.

And you can tell your Pope, that, too.

I *especially* like the Church's position that *lesbians* are child molesters, as opposed to the priests who figure their dogma 'transcends' enough to prey on queer kids and make em feel *they* are the ones to blame.

Benighted souls as we are, of course.

*looking down at JJ's latest interpretations of the 'transcendent.'

Did I mention that some things the likes of a Pope may say end up coming back at me in the *funniest* ways?

" Br. Anthony Sejda O.F.M:

To the initiate in Yoga there is no such thing as the soul at stake in gaining heaven or eternal perdition in hell. Thus Yoga can be a Utopia based on the state of nirvana (nothing)."

Man, seems the Fransiscans' education program has gone downhill, even since *I* was a kid.

Yoga is a *Hindu* practice, not a Buddhist one.

No, neither belief system is particularly hung-up on fears of Hell or promises of Heaven being involved in proper breathing.

" The metaphysical certainty of the Soul was accepted in Philosophy and the Catholic Faith. Although the body is good and needs to be nurtured, it is limited to matter and form (soul)."

Says you. If it's so limited, why you so scared?

" Why settle for less by exercising your body while losing you soul."

Oh, I dunno, I got some random idea that my life ain't based on some horrible soul-imperiling mistake. Go figure, Frater.

" Your soul will outlast your body and will be an everlasting memory for good or evil."

Funny. *I* thought Catholic doctine said that knowing 'good and evil' was a 'fall from grace' which a) Was not the state of divine grace, and b) which Jesus supposedly conquered forever, anyway, despite current fixations.

Guess no one got the debriefing on that.

Can I have my body, now?

To wit, they have written off reforming elements in the Church and, since they're losing real estate, anyway, are seeking to *polarize.*

Get in on some of that political power.

Compete with the megachurches, streamline operations, etc, tell the Third World they will fix everything by 'magical' dogmatic means, etc, etc.

Treat pervasive patterns of systemic abuse like a need to 'purge the gays' ...just a 'scandal,' and an 'image problem,' while defending and demanding the exact same mechanisms that result in that dysfunction and abuse of power in the first place....

...hope old Catholic money and old Catholic business will back them on interfering in politics and being bad neighbors in America.

Then say, 'But we have the key to *transcendence.* Don't *meditate and look at the contents of your own mind, as if you had any innate connection to the universe or anything,* ...don't *bend that way,* ...bend how *we* say. With your knees. On cue. Or Else. It's transcendent. Really.

But, hey, call it 'Catholic-bashing' when we who saw all that and went off to do something else actually try and *hold some light up to that, since you're all about chasing us down and waving that in our faces, still.*

*Maybe* your Pope could come see something 'transcendent' in the *rest* of the world, instead of trying to figure out how to spin his utter lack of respect into a marketing pitch.

Gods. Like it was *hard* or something.

That kind of Catholic tends to say, "You don't love your neighbor. Cause only Jesus says, 'Love Your Neighbor as Yourself.'

I say, "But you *hate* yourself. Don't treat me like *that.*

People with other spiritual practices haven't been doing them all these years to be 'lost sheep' in someone else's myth.

Capiche, Mr. Shriver?

To the initiate in Yoga there is no such thing as the soul at stake in gaining heaven or eternal perdition in hell. Thus Yoga can be a Utopia based on the state of nirvana (nothing). The metaphysical certainty of the Soul was accepted in Philosophy and the Catholic Faith. Although the body is good and needs to be nurtured, it is limited to matter and form (soul). Why settle for less by exercising your body while losing you soul. Your soul will outlast your body and will be an everlasting memory for good or evil. A while ago I heard of a cure for the soul is prayer (Transcendent conversation with the One Divine Being). I think that this message will be more resonate with the Pope and those who long to see him in the United States.

Anyway, let's get real, here. Ratzinger essentially *got* the right color smoke blown up that... chimney on *promise* of setting interfaith relations, if not the Church itself back before 'Vatican II.'

Bernie Law got kicked upstairs to help do it.

The Church *chose* him, hoping to play on a 'saintly' Pope, and break all precedent to immediately start canonizing him while playing certain hardline angles, whoever it hurt or alienated.

'Spirituality' ain't in the plan.

Too much? Whatever that's about, maybe "Rajneesh" oughtta take some yoga. :)

But it's beside the point. :)

RAJNEESH - you're dead. Too much Kundalini???

And just cause it amuses me, JJ:

I got Her number. How d'ya like *them* photons? :)

I also invite him to try tantric yoga and perhaps kamasutra. Both good for heart and soul.

I still do not understand why religion and physical pleasure (sex) can not mix?

Not to sound *too* confrontational, there. If he turned up at my house, he'd get the same hospitality as anyone, no rings or other trappings of office would be kissed, but he's still a man.

One of the very things that's just so *obnoxious* about how Catholics speak of other peoples' religions, though, is acting like some guy all wound up about sexuality and the usual is gonna tell us about 'transcendence' like it's copyright.

"In the weeks ahead, we'll see whether Benedict can make religion relevant to the spiritual age. "

Frankly, he's way behind the curve, there.

Since the last Pope was starting to ail too badly to really keep an eye on them, (not that he din't have his own things, anyway) ...the reactionaries of this current Pope's camp have been getting in bed with the neocon promises and rolling back any meager progress on ecumenical relations every chance they get.

I once said about the Church, a long time ago, "They'll get the time of day from me when the Pope apologizes for the Inquisition."

The last Pope actually kinda did.

This one *un-apologized.*

This really *doesn't* just go for the Catholics, but a man in *his* position, with all the presumptive authority and adulation, holds a greater responsibility.

He doesn't feel the effects of his words on we definedly-by-you-lot 'untranscendent' peoples. What words from him can do to all manner of people he doesn't know.

We do.

He appeals to the common prejudices and implies I'm somehow 'Satanic,' or otherwise divorced from humanity or goodness or any sense of 'morality,' cause *he* wants to be the one to define these things, then *I'm* one of the ones who has to worry how someone's gonna flip out about that.

Maybe he *should* come around my house sometime.

See some of the things a queer girl keeps around just in case, ...he could say, "What's that for?"

I could say, "That's Plan C for when anyone believes you too hard."

We are responsible for what we do and say, ...in whatever name. This is one thing *my* patron God spelled out for me, right on 'orientation day.'

Too many Christian authorities and would-be-authorities are still running around acting like they own the keys to Spirit, and not incidentally, thereby, *our existential behinds.*

To a lot of folks, it looks like they built a fiercely-defended tollbooth in the biggest field ever and still crow on how no one should be looking at anything else.

If I know anything about 'transcendence,' Mr. Shriver, it's that people *desiring* it will sometimes go to all manner of trouble for themselves or others to scorn the world.

*Enough* transcendence, though, well, that'll sort out any haste to scorn and forever leave a world of wonders, right quick.

He feels he's a staunch defender of a narrow gate somewhere.

But the wall's long since fallen and a lot of folks are just past it.

Unfortunately, this Pope has already come out with hostility toward yoga, non-traditional spirituality, Buddhism, and Paganism.

Ironic you think he ought to 'condescend' to telling these folks about 'love,' as you so patronizingly imply, yourself.

The Catholic press just recently indulged in one of those little smear campaigns against my faith, maybe he ought to ask *them* about love in their lives.

For now, he sees my *back.*

Thanks for your article Tim.

This particular pope has a history of being quite unsympathetic to other faiths. Benedict's observation regarding Buddhism, perhaps the most prevalent Eastern tradition offering spiritual development through inner reflection and meditation in the West today, says it all - he cryptically referred to Buddhism as 'mental masturbation' some years ago while still a Cardinal of the Church.

While hatha yoga is decidedly physical and with an emphasis on good health practices, other schools of yoga stress the 'inner traditions' that are found in both the Hindu and Buddhist schools of yogic practice, as you mention in your article. Perhaps Benedict would be best advised to acquaint himself with the contemplative traditions of Christianity in order to better gain a more empathic view of other peoples, other places, and other esoteric traditions.

The fact is, someone in Benedict's position is guaranteed to believe that Catholicism is the one true faith, and in all ways superior to other religious traditions. I don't see him as being driven by ecumenical concerns in a big way.

The noted Trappist monk and auther Thomas Merton dabbled in Zen Buddhism for years, becoming quite expert in it's history, philosophy, and meditative practices.

In the end, he proclaimed the superiority of Christianity and salvation through Jesus - which to me meant that he never got to the heart of Zen....even once. Nevertheless, he was deeply knowledgeable and sympathetic of other contemplative traditions. I see Benedict as an administrator and drum beater for the faith, rather than as a spiritually inclined seeker for deep truth. He already has his truth and is trying to make sure that Catholics everywhere hang on to what they've got.

That is, the conventional and exoteric Catholic truths and doctrines that would be the area of Benedict's theological expertise. Little does he know that a good many folks out there dabbling in the various forms of yoga are probably good Catholics that go to Mass every Sunday.

What was once abolute heresy is now found down at the neighborhood YMCA 5 nights a week.