PraiseforTheGuruPapers

“Easily the most comprehensive, erudite, and timely book … to explore authoritarianism inreligion, institutions, power, the family, intimacy and sexual relations, and personal problemssuchasaddiction.…Argue[s]persuasivelythatanysystemofvaluesthatplacestraditionandthepastabovetheimperativetoquestionthepresentisdestinedtobecomeincreasinglylethal.”—SanFranciscoChronicleBookReview

“A thorough, wide-ranging analysis of the way power has historically been maintained.… Adiagnosis ofwhat’swrongwith theworld andhow to fix it.… Its thesis is elegant andnearlyunlimitedinitsramifications.…[Showsthat]authoritarianismis…partofthewaywethink.”—TheNewMexican(SantaFe)

“Don’t be deceived by the title. The Guru Papers is about much more than cult groups. Aprofoundly important critique of the covert authoritarianism ofmost religions… and of suchculturalvaluesasunconditionallove,addiction,and12-stepprograms.…Thought-provokingandradically important.… Extraordinarily rich and complex.… An important contribution tochanging[oldparadigms].”—Liberty

“Spells out… the dangers of becoming addicted to another’s authority in any sphere of life.”—TimesLiterarySupplement(London)

“Abreathtakinglyprofoundanalysis.…Oneof themostdeeply insightfulworksofour time.…Nearly every page crackles with statements that provoked one ‘Aha!’ after another as I sawelements of culture, history, and my own experience from a new perspective that madeimmediatesense.…Amagnificentcontribution.…Themostreasonableandcoherentpictureoftheevolutionofreligiousideastodate,andbrilliantsectionsonloveandcontrol,andaddiction.… A vision of spirituality beyond authoritarianism. [and] tremendous contribution to ourcollectiveunderstanding.”—RichardHeinberg,authorofBlackout

“The Guru Papers is essential reading [for] questions of power, shadow, authority, spiritualgrowth and freedom.… The “go to” book for … understand[ing the] shadow aspect ofspirituality.…Amasterpieceoflucidreasoning.Itencouragesadeepconsiderationofthepathtogenuine freedom and self-acceptance.… Down-to-earth guide to understanding several of thecentralspiritualquestionswithwhichweallwrestle.…Genuinelylife-changingfoodforthought.…Centraltotheirthesisisthatweneedtofindwaystogobeyondauthoritariansystemsifwearetotrulygrowupashumanbeingsandsurviveonthisplanettogether…

I have never come across a more comprehensive treatment of both the various methods ofenacting“spiritual”controlanddisempowerment,aswellashowvariousbeliefsystems…makethispossible.…Theauthorsmasterfullypointouthowphilosophiesthatuseabstractconceptionsof “oneness” and “non-duality” often actually.… encourage in-group identification andpsychological fragmentation while perpetuating an unwillingness to see reality.… A bracing,

illuminating, well-written, comprehensive, brilliant look at what needs to be grasped … forspiritualityto…[be]aforceforhealing,genuinegrowthandresponsibility,andpositivechangeintheworld.”—JulianWalker,ElephantJournal

“Provocativeandthorough.…Unmask[s]thecountlessmanifestationsofauthoritarianisminourcontemporaryculture.Cover[s]vastterritory…rais[es]allthevitallyimportantquestions.…Itshould definitely be placed in the hands of anyone who has been, or is, or contemplatesbecominginvolvedwithaguru.”—GeorgFeuerstein,YogaJournal

“Expands the concept of authoritarianism and gives a new slant on the human condition.…Showsthattoovercomeourstaggeringproblems,wemustlearntothinknon-authoritarian.Theconvincingargumentswillmakereadersre-sort theirthinking.”—JohnIrwin,authorofTheFelon

“Thequestionsraisedbyitaresoprofoundthattheycanneverbeputoutofone’smind.”—TheHumanist

“[Can]shiftreaders’mindsinadeepway.[They’re]ontosomethingbig.…Elegantlyarticulatesmanyof[our].…unformedthoughts”—Synapse

“TheGuruPapersanswersahostofquestionsaboutthesourceofrecurringproblems.Itunmaskstheinsidiouslypervasivenatureofauthoritarianvaluesthatpermeatesociety.Withoutawarenessofhowauthoritarianismoperatesbelowthelevelofawareness,wetooarelikelytobecomeitsvictims.…Perceptiveguidelinesfordetectinghiddenauthoritarianismandinterventionstrategiesforself-empowerment.…DealswiththemostfundamentalaspectsoftheYinandYangofhumannatureandthemeaningofsocialcommunity.”—PhilipZimbardo,authorofPsychologyandLife

“Laser clarity.…Fascinating insights into the leader/follower relationship.… [and] the usuallyveiled authoritarianism embedded in world views and values.…One of themost compelling,‘can’tputitdown’booksI’vereadinalongtime,[it]offerschallengingconceptsforegalitariancommunities”—CommunitiesMagazine

“With x-ray analysis and laser precision it discloses authoritarian structures. It expandsconsciousnessof theconsciousness journey itself,exposing itseverpresentdarker side. Itevenoffersaflashlightguidethroughthisdarkness.Uncompromisinginitsthesis,sparingnocurrentidol,itisapoignantattackontheillusionsofourtimes.”—MikeArons,professoremeritusofpsychology,WestGeorgiaCollege

“Undertake[s] the monumental task of reforming the very basis of civilization.… Step[s]on… nearly every sacred cow.… Offers both affirmation and optimism.”—Creative Loafing(Atlanta)

“For those…who prefer to have theirworld grounded in comfortable, familiar dogmas, thisbookwillmake their hair stand on end.…Dissect[s],with the best scientific rigor,many oldstandardsofbelief.”—FateMagazine

“Offers new insights for restructuring a more functional and caring society by exposing theculturalauthoritarianismthatunderminesdemocracy.”—JamesAustin,coauthorofIt’sAboutTime

“Filledwith insight.…Deconstructs the authoritarianism ofmodernity.…TheGuru Papers canhelpchangeagentsreconceptualizewhattheyaretryingtodoandhowtheyaretryingtodoit”—JournalofOrganizationalChangeManagement

“Thechapteronaddictionpresentsanexcitingandprovocativenewconceptabouttheoriginandprocessofaddiction.Amustreadfortherapistsandaddictioncounselors.”—AnnMcKain,pastPresidentofTheAmericanAcademyofPsychotherapists

“A tour-de-force. Fascinating model of the psychology of addictive behavior.… Profound andcompelling account of the endless battle betweenwarring aspects of our being—and howwemightbecomewhole.…Theirwritingshavebeenanindispensableresourceinmyclinicalwork.”—JeffreyRubin,authorofTheArtofFlourishing

“Ambitious treatise [on] the foundation of our social and self-control mechanisms.… [Theaddiction chapter] take[s] on the diseasemodel.… and also… ‘responsibilitymodels’.…As alongtimeresearcher…ofaddiction,Ifound[it]arefreshinganalysisofpredominanttheoriesofsubstanceabuse.[Their]ownmodelofthedividedpsycheand‘whyitfeelsgoodtobebad’wasnot only original but resonant.… Particularly useful regarding the futility of the drugwar/punitiveapproach.…”—MarshaRosenbaum,JournalofPsychoactiveDrugs

“AnyonewhoreadsTheGuruPaperswillbeprofoundlychanged.Itsideasarelikeamedicallaserbeamvaporizingcancercellswiththepoweroftruth.”—StevenHassanauthorofCombattingCultMindControl

“Deliverswhatitpromises…Describ[eshow]…overtandcovertauthoritarianismcanintrudeintosocial,political,andreligiousbeliefsandinterferewithnormalpersonalitydevelopment.…PartIIexploressubtle,indirectforcesinvaluesandbeliefs…concealedinwhatpeopleassumeand take for granted.… Merits wide readership … highly recommended.” — Cultic StudiesJournal

“[Goes] deeply into the inherent paradoxes in…world religion… Explain[s] with blisteringclaritywhywegetseduced.”—WholeEarthReview

“Abold,timely,importantbookthatcanteachustothinkresponsiblyabout‘spiritual’questions.It deserves tobe abasic text in comparative religion.”—AbrahamLevitsky, coauthorwithFritzPerlsofTheRulesandGamesofGestaltTherapy

“Acontributionofthehighestorder.…Ofimmenseandimmediateconsequence”—Brain/MindBulletin

“Oneofthemostimportantbooksforthe21stcentury”—FordGreene,anti-cultattorney

“Abrilliantbookinspiringnewinsightswitheachre-reading.I’veopenedthebookrandomlyandreceived just the wisdom I needed for my next step toward freedom.” — Susan Campbell,authorofGettingReal

“Very important … Simply and elegantly written … One of the most helpful books onpsychologicaloppressionofthedecade.”—CreationSpirituality

“Brilliantlyanalytical,alwaysprobing, thisadventurousbookoffersanunflinchingviewof thestructureandpsychologyofreality.”—JohnTytell,authorofNakedAngels

“It’s unusual to find a book that covers [so]much ground… and does it so well.”—TruthSeeker

“Explores [how] the struggle for independence… is counteredbydeeplyembedded structureswithineveryaspectofsociety…andwithintheindividualpsyche.”—NoeticSciencesReview

“Elegantlyidentifiesthemasksthatpowerusestohideitsabuse[s]…Hard-hittingpracticallogicthat rips the guts out of sacred cows that have fed too long in pastures provided by anaïve…population.”—PointReyesLight

“The Guru Papers challenges core beliefs with powerful arguments that seem self-evident andoffershope.Itshowsthattheauthoritarianvirusisnotinthebio-computer,butinthewayit’sprogrammed.”—TimothyLeary,authorofFlashbacks

“Anessentialkeytounderstanding…controlandmanipulation.”—TheBookwatch

“Discusseshowauthoritarianleadersmanipulatefollowersandwhypeoplesurrendertothem.”—PublishersWeekly

OtherBooksbytheAuthors

ThePassionateMind:AManualforLivingCreativelywithOne’sSelf

byJoelKramer

ThePassionateMindRevisited:ExpandingPersonalandSocialAwarenessbyJoelKramerandDianaAlstad

Copyright©1993byJoelKramerandDianaAlstad.Allrightsreserved.Noportionofthisbook,exceptforbriefreview,maybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmittedinanyformorbyanymeans—electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recording,orotherwise—withoutwrittenpermissionofthepublisher.ForinformationcontactFrogBooksc/oNorthAtlanticBooks.

PublishedbyFrogBooks,animprintofNorthAtlanticBooksP.O.Box12327, CoverdesignbyPaulaMorrisonBerkeley,California94712

TheGuruPapers:MasksofAuthoritarianPowerissponsoredbytheSocietyfortheStudyofNativeArtsandSciences,anonprofiteducationalcorporationwhosegoalsaretodevelopaneducationalandcross-culturalperspectivelinkingvariousscientific,social,andartisticfields;tonurtureaholisticviewofarts,sciences,humanities,andhealing;andtopublishanddistributeliteratureontherelationshipofmind,body,andnature.

NorthAtlanticBooks’publicationsareavailablethroughmostbookstores.Forfurtherinformation,visitourwebsiteatwww.northatlanticbooks.comorcall800-733-3000.

ISBN-13:978-1-883319-00-7

LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationDataKramer,Joel,1937–Thegurupapers:masksofauthoritarianpower/JoelKramerandDianaAlstad.p.cm.Includesbibliographicalreferences.ISBN1-883319-00-5eBookISBN978-1-58394-598-81.Authoritarianism.2.Control(Psychology)

3.Authoritarianism—Religiousaspects.4.Control(Psychology)—Religiousaspects.5.Gurus—Psychology.I.Alstad,Diana,1944–.II.Title.

BF698.35.A87K731993 93–18494

303.3’3—dc20

v3.1_r1

DedicatedtoIsadoreKramer

Beneaththevisibleauthoritarianisminpolitics,socialstructures,andpersonalities isa farmorepervasive, covert authoritarianism. It is hidden in culture, values, anddaily life.Byunmasking authoritarianism in such areas as addiction, intimate relations, morality, andreligion,theauthorsexposeitasamajorfactorinsocialdisintegration.

PartOneexaminesthemostextremeexampleofonepersongivingpowertoanother,theguru/disciplerelationship,becausethisrevealslessobviousoccurrencesofcontrol.“Guru”isametaphorforanyonewhomanipulatesothersundertheguiseof“knowingwhat’sbest”forthemandisunchallengeable—whetherleaders,mothers,orlovers.

PartTwodecodestheauthoritariancontrolconcealedincontemporaryvaluesandbeliefs.It portrays how basic problems, both personal and global, are tied to authoritarianassumptionssoembeddedtheyaretakenforgranted.

TheGuruPapersshowsthereisaworldwidebattleforpeople’smindsoverbasicvalues.Atstake in these“moralswars” isourverysurvivalasa species.Whenpeople takeback theauthority that has been unknowingly invested in others, this can unleash the intelligenceandcareneededtoensurethatourhistorywillcontinue.

Contents

CoverTitlePage

OtherBooksbytheAuthorsCopyright

DedicationPREFACEANDMAPOFTHEBOOK

INTRODUCTION:WhyFocusonAuthoritarianismAUTHORITY,HIERARCHY,ANDPOWER

PART1:PERSONALMASKS

1.RELIGION,CULTS,ANDTHESPIRITUALVACUUMReligionandMoralityTheChallengeofScienceWhoDefinesRealityinReligionsandCults?ReexaminingtheSacred

2.GURUSANDTIMESOFUPHEAVAL

3.THESEDUCTIONSOFSURRENDERControlandSurrenderScandals,Saints,andSelf-CenterednessRecognizingAuthoritarianControl

4.GURUPLOYSInducingSurrenderMaintainingDominance

5.THEASSAULTONREASON

6.STAGESOFCULTS:ProselytizingtoParanoiaMessianicProselytizingApocalypticParanoia

7.THEATTRACTIONSOFCULTHIERARCHY

8.GURUSANDSEXUALMANIPULATIONTheBetrayalofTrustSpiritualHedonismandTantra

9.GURUS,PSYCHOTHERAPY,ANDTHEUNCONSCIOUS

10.THETRAPSOFBEINGAGURUNarcissismandAdulationDeceitandCorruption

11.JIMJONESANDTHEJONESTOWNMASSSUICIDE

12.ONCHANNELINGDISEMBODIEDAUTHORITIESAssumptionsaboutChannelingAnExampleofChanneledWriting:ACourseinMiraclesWhatAreChannelsChanneling?

13.DOYOUCREATEYOUROWNREALITY?KarmaBecomesOmnipotence

14.HEALINGCRIPPLEDSELF-TRUST

PART2:IDEOLOGICALMASKS

INTRODUCTION:TheMoralsWars

1.FUNDAMENTALISMANDTHENEEDFORCERTAINTYDogmatismvs.ModernizationTheEssenceofFundamentalismTheQuandariesofRevisionismRevisionismandtheNeedforIdentityWhat’satStake?

2.SATANISMANDTHEWORSHIPOFTHEFORBIDDEN:WhyItFeelsGoodtoBeBadGoodandEvilTheProblemofEvilSatanismasanAvenuetoPowerTheDividedSelf:GoodandEvilInternalizedTheDarkSideofMonotheism

3.WHOISINCONTROL?TheAuthoritarianRootsofAddictionWhatIsAddiction?TheDividedPsyche:SymptomofaDysfunctionalMoralityTamingtheBeast:TheInnerBattleforControlAddictionasRevoltagainsttheInnerAuthoritarianTheFailingsofDiseaseandResponsibilityModelsTwelveStepstoWhere?DevelopingWholenessandSelf-Trust

4.LOVEANDCONTROL:TheConditionsUnderlyingUnconditionalLoveWhatIsUnconditionalLove?Love,Time,andTimelessnessSelf-Sacrifice,Power,andPassionControlandBoundaries“LoveAddiction”MeasuringandRolesForgivingandLettingGoTheReligiousFoundationofUnconditionalLoveTimelessLovethroughTime

5.ONENESS,ENLIGHTENMENT,ANDTHEMYSTICALEXPERIENCETheMysticalExperienceDualismandRenunciationTheFunctionofEnlightenmentTheOne-SidednessofOnenessHolismandInterconnectednessRenunciationasAccumulation

6.THEPOWEROFABSTRACTION:TheSacredWordandtheEvolutionofMoralityAbstractionsandPowerFromAnimismtoPolytheism:TheConcreteAbstractionsofIdolatryMonotheism:AUniversalAbstractionOneness:TheCulminationofReligiousAbstractionAbstraction,Either/OrThinking,andDualismSymbolSystemsandPowerTransformingtheSymbolSystem:ADialecticalPerspective

EPILOGUE:WheretoGofromHere?

WhatHappenedtoControlAbouttheAuthors

T

PrefaceandMapoftheBook

heGuruPapershashadastrangeevolution.Manyof thepapers inPart One on gurus were sketched some years ago (in 1984) as adalliance. Eventually we polished them, added several more, and putthemoutourselvesasabooklet,mainlyforfriends.Whenthepublisherofferedtoputitoutasabook,theideawastoputitoutquicklyasis.But given this opportunity, we thought why not include a few moreessays,andbroadenthetopicofauthoritarianismbeyondgurus.Wethusbegantopullonthethreadofauthoritarianism,andindoing

so, much of the fabric of civilization began conceptually to unravel.Historically, authoritarianism has been part of the structural weaveholding social orders together. It still is interwoven and disguised inmost arenas of human interaction, including religion,morality, power,institutions,thefamily,intimacy,andevensexualrelationsandpersonalproblems, such as addiction. We found authoritarianism embedded inpeople’s psyches, affectingmuchmore of day-to-day existence than isgenerally conceived. This is because in most people’s mindsauthoritarianism is associated with political systems such asdictatorships, rather than with worldviews, values, and the usuallyunconsciousprogrammingpeopleusetomaintaincontrolovertheirownlivesandoverothers. Intheprocessofwritingthisbook,wedeepenedourunderstandingofhowauthoritarianisminitsvariedguiseshasbeenandlargelystill isaprimarymodeofsocialcohesion—andalsohowithasnowbecomeamajorfactorinsocialdisintegration.In the four years that have gone by since deciding to publish the

booklet,whathasemergedisamoreambitiousprojectthatwe’recallingControl, ofwhich this book is intended tobe apart.Weexpanded theoriginalpapersongurustointroduceandhighlightbasicthemeswithinauthoritarianism.Inaddition,manynewessayshavebeencompletedormapped out all aiming to show psychological or “mentalauthoritarianism”atworkinsuchdiverseareasasaddiction,parenting,

love, reproduction, ideology, values, identity, democracies, science,religion,mysticalworldviews,andmeditation.Andstillwearenotdone.Clearlytheventurehadgottenoutofhand.Wethusdecidedtoputoutthisbookcontainingnotonlytheessaysongurus(PartOne),butalsosixchapters(PartTwo)fromthelargerprojectedworkthatshowtheoften-disguisedauthoritarianismwithinideologiesandrelatedspheres.

The introductory chapter, “Authority,Hierarchy, and Power,” definesand clarifies how we use these concepts, delineating the differencebetweenauthorityandauthoritarianpower,andbetweenhierarchyandauthoritarian hierarchy. Authority and hierarchy are inescapableconstructions within any social order, however they need not beauthoritarian. Though hierarchies have been (and still are)predominantly authoritarian, we maintain that the authoritarianismembedded in hierarchy, not hierarchy itself, is the source of theproblems that have made many people “anti-hierarchy.” This chaptersetsthestageforourperspectivesonauthoritariancontrol.“Religion,Cults,andtheSpiritualVacuum”establishesaframeworkgeared at demonstrating that morality is breaking down worldwidebecause its foundations come from “renunciate” religions andworldviews that are unable to deal with technologically leveragedpower. This chapter describes the nature of renunciate religions, whytheymustbeauthoritarian,andalsowhytraditionalviewsofthesacredneedtobereexamined.Part One, “Personal Masks,” deals primarily with control andmanipulation on the personal level, utilizing the relation betweencharismatic leaders and their followers as a stark example. Livingrelationshipshavea tangible, three-dimensionalquality thatmakes thedynamics of authoritarianism within them the easiest to unmask. Wefocusontherelationshipbetweenguruanddisciplebecauseitdisplaysthe epitome of surrender to a living person, and thus clearly exhibitswhatitmeanstotrustanothermorethanoneself.Thetraditionalframeworkbetweenguruanddiscipleisasabsoluteinauthoritarian demands (total surrender and obedience) as any on theplanet. By unambiguously exhibiting the mechanisms of control andsurrender,itoffersaquintessentialexampleofmentalauthoritarianism,whose power lies in controlling minds rather than in overt physical

coercion.Our intention in using this relationship as an exemplar is toshowtheseductions,predictablepatterns,andcorruptionscontainedinany essentially authoritarian form. Though extreme, the guru modelillustrates well the workings of authoritarian power that occur lessovertlyinmanyotherrelationshipsandcontexts.Itsrelativelysimplisticstructure, combined with very sophisticated justifications, displays thedynamicsofauthoritarianismwritlarge.Although gurus are already taintedwith corruption in theminds ofmany, this is ordinarily seen as the failing of individuals. Instead wewish to show that theabusesofpower thatoccur in suchcontextsarestructural rather than personal, and why this is necessarily so. Thepapers on gurus and cults depict in concrete terms the mechanisms,rewards,disguisedcollusions,anddangersofsurrenderingtothosewhoposition themselves as knowing what’s best for others. Decoding thedynamicsofmanipulationcanhelppeopleavoidsuchtraps.PartOneusestheguru/disciplerelationshipastheprimaryvehicleindeciphering authoritarian power. Each chapter also contains moregeneralobservations, includinghowwhat isbeingdescribedapplies toother less obvious areas. “The Seductions of Surrender” examines theemotions that make people susceptible to authoritarian control. “OnChannelingDisembodiedAuthorities” is includedbecausemanypeopleapproachchannelswiththesameunexaminedassumptionstheyhaveofgurus. Here we show that whatever the reality of the phenomenon,channeling usually operates within an authoritarian system of belief.“Do You Create Your Own Reality?,” a critique of a worldviewespoused by many channels and New Age leaders, examines how thedeterministic aspects of karma and reincarnation are turned into apeculiarWesternfantasyofomnipotence.“HealingCrippledSelf-Trust”offersperspectivespertinenttoanyonewhohasbeendeeplybetrayedordeceived.Since authoritarian leaders promulgate ideologies that justify theirpower and actions, no understanding of power is complete withoutexamining the ways ideologies are used to support it. If the power isauthoritarian, the ideologywill alsobe so. Some ideologiesmask theirauthoritarianism, while others do not. But even those that do not, domaskthewaytheyareutilizedtosupportself-interestandauthoritariancontrol.

Part Two, “IdeologicalMasks,” highlights control by ideology. It iscomprised of six chapters aimed at revealing the usually veiledauthoritarianismwithinworldviewsandvalues.Thesechaptersspelloutin more depth where susceptibility to being controlled comes from,showinghowtheseformswork,whytheyattractpeople,andtheir far-reaching effects. Included are arguments demonstrating whyauthoritarian ideologies arenotonlypersonally crippling, but arenowthreateningplanetarysurvival.“TheMoralsWars”introducesPartTwobymappingoutwhatwefeel

isatstake.Itpresentswhywethinkthebasicplanetarystrugglethatwilldetermine the future is between the forces of the old and the new forpeople’sminds.1. Fundamentalism and satanism are both examples of overt control

byideologythatshowtheworkingsofauthoritarianismwithinWesterntraditions.“FundamentalismandtheNeedforCertainty”dealsnotonlywith the power and appeal of such ideologies, butwithwhy they aredifficult to revise. Included is an examination of the nature of thefundamentalistandrevisionistmentalitiesandtheproblemsinherentineach.2.In“SatanismandtheWorshipoftheForbidden:WhyItFeelsGood

toBeBad”satanismisshowntobeanexampleofanextremereactionagainst a morality that denigrates carnality. As a mirror image offundamentalism,itutilizesauthoritariancontroltopromoteandunleashthetaboo.Thischapterdiscussesthewaytheabsoluteconceptsofgoodandevilhavecreatedadeepdivisioninpeople,whichinturngeneratesandmagnifiestheallureofthedarkandforbidden.Theappealofbeing“bad”isexplainedintermsmostpeoplecanrelatetointhemselves.Thisand the following chapter on addiction develop a framework thatdemonstrateshowadualisticmoralitygeneratesconflictby implantinganinnerauthoritarianwhichpeoplethentrytoescape—satanismbeingoneavenueofescape,addictionbeinganother.3.“WhoisinControl?TheAuthoritarianRootsofAddiction”views

the dysfunctionality and core conflict within addiction as just onemanifestation of having internalized authoritarian values. Decipheringthe dynamics within the authoritarian psyche reveals why people aresusceptible tomanipulation and control, and also prone to addictions.Thischapterpresentsadifferentkindofmodel thatviewsaddictionas

aninnerbattleforcontrolresultingfromadividedpsyche.Itelucidateswhat control by ideology feels like internally and explains manyanomalies that other theories of addiction do not. We also show thatauthoritarianism is embedded in the diseasemodel (including 12-Stepprograms)aswellasinthe“responsibility”modelscurrentlychallengingthediseasemodel.Addiction is a graphic example of how hidden authoritarianismoperatesindailylife,bothintheprogramsthatattempttoameliorateitand within the designated addict. Inner authoritarianism mirrors theouter,morefamiliarmanifestationsofit.Anyonewhohaseverfelt“outof control” can utilize our framework to determine for themselveswhether there is an inner authoritarian at the root of such feelings.Understandinghowoneisdrivenbysuchprogrammingcanhelpliberateonefromit.Eventhoughmanysocialstructureslargelyrewarddividedrather than whole people, the final section gives some direction forendingtheinnerbattleforcontrol.4. “Love and Control: The Conditions Underlying UnconditionalLove”showstheinsidiousnatureofauthoritarianideologiesinthemostintimatecornersoflife.Idealssuchasunconditionallove,timelesslove,or pure love come from renunciate moralities that are authoritarian.Ideologies impact and often take control of emotions, distorting lovewith unlivable values and expectations.We show how such ideals areusedby those inpower (whether in intimacyor in societyat large) tomaintain control over others. The relation between love and power isreframed through examining such elements as boundaries, forgiveness,measuring, and self-sacrifice. The aim is to free people from limitingperspectivesoflovethatsetoneupforfailure.5.“Oneness,Enlightenment,andtheMysticalExperience”examinesthe ideology most Eastern spiritual teachers (and now many Westernones) use to justify and support their authority and position. Theideology of Oneness, with its derivative concept enlightenment,embodies themost sophisticatedexampleof religiousauthoritarianism.This chapter demonstrates how the mystical experience of unity hasbeen conceptualized into a covertly authoritarian worldview. A majorconcern of this chapter is to show hidden control within a powerfulideology that on the surface appears beyond reproach, and certainlyabovecrassmanipulation.

6.“ThePowerofAbstraction:TheSacredWordandtheEvolutionofMorality” investigates the fundamental link between concepts, power,andcontrol.Bybroadlydescribingtheevolutionofreligiousandmoralthought the aim is to show how concepts become mechanisms forcontrollingpeople.Everyworldviewcontainsitsuniqueabstractionsthatdefine it. This chapter discusses the different ways words andabstractionsareusedtocreateworldviewsthatstructuretheacceptableparametersofhumaninteraction,andhowthisaffectssociety.Itshowshow the evolution of abstraction enabled religions to increase controlthrough creating more abstract moralities that are authoritarian. Thepowers unleashed by scientific abstractions are obvious, but theenduringpowerof religiousabstractions is lessapparent—especially inmoresecularizedcultures.Aviewpointispresentedthathelpsrecognizeauthoritarian elements within worldviews, and lays groundwork forwhatanon-authoritarianframeworkcouldbelike.

Thoughthisbookhasaloosecontinuityandarationalethatbuildsfromstart to finish, it is also constructed to enable readers to follow theirthread of interest by dipping intowhatever parts draw them, creatingtheir own order. So the book has been devised to be cross-referential.Through footnotes, the reader is referred toother sectionsof theworkthataddto,furthersupport,ordeepenwhatisbeingsaid.Eachchaptercantosomeextentstandalone,withthereferenceshelpingtofillgapsand lead to connections that are not always obvious. Since themechanisms of control have a structural similarity, with contextualvariations,basicthemesareapproachedandexaminedthroughdifferentlensesandangles.Thisbookhastwokindsofreferences:Mostfootnotesrefertochapters

in the book that address different facets of the topic. Others refer toalreadywritten,unpublishedchaptersfromControl.Theyareincludedtoshow the issue is worthy ofmore discussion and to draw connectionswithothersubjects.Given that we view much of the abuse of authoritarian power as

essentiallystructural,TheGuruPapersdoesnotsingleoutindividualsorname names. Although women do assume authoritarian roles, themasculinepronounisusedthroughouttorefertogurusandauthoritieswheneversucharolehasbeentraditionallymale.

Inthesewritingstheword“paradigm”usuallyreferstomorethanjustamodelorexemplar;itsmeaningisextendedtoincorporatetheideaofafoundationalelementwithinstructures.(Thisusageisnotoriginalwithus.) Thus “paradigm shift” indicates a change in basic viewpoint—forinstance,usingscienceasthefoundationfortruthratherthanrevelation.Also, we take the liberty of eithermaking newword constructions orusingwordsdifferently,aswedothewiththeword“renunciate.”Thisisdonetoavoidcumbersomelocutions,sothat“renunciatemorality,”forexample,replaces“amoralitythatmandatesrenunciationasanecessaryvirtue.”Themeaningsofsuchwordsshouldbeself-evident.When words such as “spiritual” or “spirituality” are in quotation

marks,thisindicateswethinkwhatisbeingcalledspiritualisreallypartofanauthoritarianexerciseofpower.Traditionalconceptsofspiritualityare so interwoven with authoritarian control and self-servingotherworldly projections that it is tempting to give up on the wordentirely.Our indictment isnotof theconceptof spiritualityper se,butratherof theways it isused tobolster, justify,andmaskauthoritariancontrol.Themost commonwayofaccomplishing this is to constructarealmdifferentfromandsuperiortodailylife,labelitspiritual,andthencreate authorities who give unchallengeable directives on how to getthere.Weviewspiritualityasembeddedindailylife,notseparatefromit; thus what is needed is to bring spirituality down to Earth. This,however,isatopicforanotherbook.Wefeelverystronglyaboutthepointofviewpresentedinthisbook,

inpartbecauseithashelpedexplainforuswhythingsarethewaytheyare, and also why they must change. We present our perspective asclearly,forcefully,andaccuratelyasweknowhow.Consequently,somemightfindthetoneofthisbookuncompromising—perhapstotheextentofwonderingifitisitselfauthoritarian.Tothiswecanonlyrespondthatwehavespentmanyyearsexaminingtheseissues,includingwhatothershavethought.Todatewehavenotfoundamoreinclusiveperspective,and thus have a surety and confidence in what we are saying. Butconfidence need not be authoritarian in itself if one is truly open tobeing shown wrong. The essence of ideological authoritarianism isunchallengeability, not confidence. This book presents our currentviewpoint, which in our own minds is subject to revision, structuralchanges, and even being abandoned, should we or others find telling

weaknesses.Thisworkpresentsapointofviewandideasthatwewanttostandorfallontheirownmerit.Thoughovertheyearswehaveexaminedmanyother viewpoints, this is not awork of research or scholarship, and itdoesnotuse references tootherpeople tobolster itsperspectives.Ourmajorconcern is clarity—namely, thatanyonewhocares to follow thetrain of thoughtwill understand it, whether in agreement or not. Thegoal is to appeal asmuch as possible to people’s firsthand experienceandreasonableness.Wedothistobealignedwiththespiritofthebook,whichwehopewillfosterself-trustasafoundationforliving.Intheeighteenyearswehavelived,taught,andwrittentogether,wehaveonlybeencomfortablewhenalignedonnon-trivial issues.Sopartof our relationship has been (and is) confronting our differences untilthey are resolved. This process has sometimes taken hours, sometimesyears.TheGuruPapersisaproductofthatengagementtotheextentthatweareoftennolongercertainwhooriginatedwhichthought.Many people have helped us by reading chapters in progress andoffering valuable suggestions. Family and friends have been verysupportivefromthestart.Thoughthelistofthoseinvolvedistoolargeto catalog, we wish to give them our heartfelt thanks. We single outSerena Castaldi and Court Fisher for special mention, as theirinvolvementwithourwritingshasbeenexceptional.Finally,withouttheforesight, understanding, and patience of our publisher, RichardGrossinger,thisbookwouldnotexist.

[Note:See“WhatHappenedtoControl?”attheendofthebook]

W

Introduction:WhyFocusonAuthoritarianism

e are not alone in being disturbed by the present course ofhumanity.Why,weaskedourselves,hasaspeciesthatdisplaysthekindofalmostmagicalintelligencethatcancomeupwiththemicrochipthusfar ostensibly proven incapable of constructing viable ways ofinteractingwitheachotherandtheplanetasawhole?Whatmakesussoobtuseandseeminglyuncaringinthesedomains?Themorepessimisticanswersincludeseeingitasavictoryofevilovergood,orasafatalflawin the human makeup that renders us incapable of acting beyondlimited,short-termself-interest.Ourperspectiveismoresanguine,offeringnewgroundsforhope.We

viewtheauthoritarian ideologiesandpractices sodeeply rooted in thewaysthingsarethoughtaboutanddoneaswhatkeeptheworldstuckinold ways of doing things that no longer work. They are a majorhindrance to the necessary kind of creative problem-solving nowessential todealwith the crises that threatenbasic survival.Creativitycomesfromself-trust,whichauthoritarianbeliefssquelch.Afriendstatedwhatseemeduponhearingitatruism:“Ifyou’rereally

interested in change, then optimism is the best strategy.” If one’sviewpoint ismainlyhistorical, optimism is difficult tomuster, becausehistory has not shown the human species capable of intelligentlyhandling the power and problems created by its technologicalcleverness. Technology has obviously accelerated far beyond thecapacityofsocietiestointegrateit.Whathasnotbeensufficientlyseenarethereasonsfor thisgap. Inouropinion, thepastdoesnotholdthekey to closing thegapbecause the social structuresandworldviewsofthepastcouldnoteven imagine thecurrent stateof theworld.This iswhymanywhoaresearchingforawayoutofcontemporarydilemmasare talking about the necessity of a new model or framework, whichreally amounts to anewworldview—what isnowbeing calledabasic“paradigmshift.”

Optimism that is not to some extent grounded in the humanexperiencerisksbeingamereflightoffancythatcrashestopessimismorcynicism. Consequently, many who seek new paradigms are doing sowithindevelopmentalorevolutionaryframeworks.Thisenableskeepingthe thread of history,while allowing for transformational possibilities.What is clearly seen here is that if a framework is truly new, itmusttransform the arenawherehumanpossibilityplays itself out.Weviewourselves alignedwith this direction, as it is aplacewhere reasonableoptimism and hope are possible. The question then becomes not onlywhatistobethenatureofthisshift,buthowisittobearrivedupon?Authoritarianism lies at the root of the old paradigmsworldwide. Iteasily remains hidden because it is often not apparent in the specificcontent of a given structure, institution, ethic, or worldview.Authoritarianismratherexhibitsitselfintheprocessofhowthesehumanconstructions maintain power. This includes the ways control overpeople’smindsisobtainedandmaintained.Whatever form a new worldview takes, whatever its content andvalues,iftheprocessofcreatingormaintainingitisauthoritarian,itwillnotbereallynew.Itwillmerelybetheoldindisguise.Whateverelseanew paradigm is about, itmust gain the allegiance of people throughconsensus,notfiat. Itmustbeaframeworkopentochallengeandself-correctionviatheexperiencesoflivingpeople.Thismeansitisessentialforanyviablemodeltopromotepeopletrustingthemselvessufficientlyto value their own experiences, instead of accepting unexaminedassumptions and values. Thus any new system of values cannot holdtradition and the past more sacred than the living present, whichincludestheimplicationsforthefuturecontainedwithinthepresent.So often ideologies, worldviews, and other systems of establishingwhat is considered knowledge attempt to capture minds by “proving”theircontentright,ormoreright,thanothers.Yetinsomeofthemostimportant issues of life and death, there has not been, and perhapscannotbe,aconsensusas towhatconstituteseitherprooforrightness.The emphasis of The Guru Papers is to unmask and decipherauthoritarianism in the ways people are trained and conditioned toconstruct and maintain their views of reality. Many ideologies andworldviews on the planet today are sufficiently adept at justifyingthemselves to hold belief. The problem with belief is that it so often

stemsfrompreferenceandself-interest.Peoplecanargueendlesslyaboutwhich worldview has a better or truer content, without being able tomarshalsufficientprooftoconvincenon-believers.Whatcanbeshown,however, truth or falsity aside, is whether the basis for belief isauthoritarian, andwhether it ismasking the self-interest of thosewhouseittomaintaincontrol.Our focus is not on the more obvious manifestations ofauthoritarianism displayed in political (or other) systems that utilizephysicalthreatandcoercionastheirmainmechanismforcontrol.Thesehavebeenwidelystudied,andtoourmindsarebutthetipoftheicebergof authoritarianism. Instead,we are interested in unmasking themorehiddenandpervasivemechanismsofauthoritariancontrolthatworkbybeingimplantedinthementalities,beliefs,emotions,andaspirationsofevenmodernpeopleviaideologiesthatbreedself-mistrust.Oncepeopledonottrustthemselves,theyaresubjecttoeasymanipulation.Atcertainpivotalpointsinhistory,thefoundationsofsocialcohesionbreakdownbecausewhathasmadethemsuccessfulinthepastbecomesdysfunctional. We and many others view the present as such a time.Consequently, themost basic assumptions of every culture need to beexamined, for in our view basic problems are tied into basicassumptions. What is basic in any social order is how control ismaintainedwithinit.Nosocietycanmaintaincontrollongtermthroughphysical coercion alone, but must promulgate values that areinternalizedandtransmittedtothenextgeneration.Morality—that is, the set of values that is internalized and, to somedegreeatleast,actedupon—istheglueholdingasocialordertogether.Amoralitycannotbeseenasmerelyarbitrary,norcanithaveanyforcein isolation. So it is always embedded in a worldview that bothconstructsand justifies it.Todate, thesocializationprocesshas largelybeen authoritarian, instilling self-mistrust because it was the easiest,mostefficientwayofcontrollingpeople.Historically,theworldviewsofalltheplanet’scivilizationshavebeenauthoritarian, presenting “truth,” especially moral truth, as essentiallyunchallengeable. This aims at bringingmoral certainty, which in turnjustifies control. A primary function ofmoral certainty is that it givesone(or thegroupasawhole) theright to tellpeoplewhat todo. It isalsousedasthebasisofself-control.This iswhycertainty,particularly

moral certainty, along with the social and internal controls it brings,have greater emotional appeal than the specific beliefs in which thecertaintyisgrounded.Butthebeliefsarenecessarytomaintaincertainty.Consequently, such beliefs are very resistant to change no matter thepowerofdifferingargumentsandevidence.Certaintyisapsychologicalstate.When it isprotectedbybeliefs that areunchallengeable (that is,authoritarian),both thebeliefs and the controls justifiedby thebeliefshardeninthefaceofchange.Whenthechangesaresogreatthatwhatisneededisashiftinvaluesandintheworldviewthatstandsbehindthevalues,suchhardeningnolongerservesthewell-beingoftheindividualorsociety.Inourview,thesearesuchtimes.Nowthetraditional,oftenhidden authoritarianmodes of transmitting andprotecting informationare leading humanity toward its own demise. We view the degree towhichacultureisauthoritarianasabarometerofitsdysfunctionality.All ideological authoritarianism, including its relation to power and

control, has a similar structure no matter what its content. This ismaskedby the oftenpristine ideals of the content.One suchuniversalfoundinallformsofauthoritarianworldviewsisthattheyallhaveandpromotemechanisms to instill self-mistrust. There are others. Amajorconcern of this book is to decipher the code thatmasks authoritarianpower.Thesewritingsdohaveaviewpointthatcanbegleaned,ofteninthe

background,which isevolutionaryanddialectical. It isevolutionary inthatitseeshumanityasengagedinaprocessforcingittoevolveintheway it relates to itself, other species, and the planet’s ecosystems.Confronting its no longer viable, destructive habits is part of thatengagement. Our perspective is dialectical in the sense that it seestraditional categories of opposition, such as competition/cooperationand egoism/altruism, as embedded in each other. This view is fleshedoutthroughoutthebook.Itisnotnecessary,however,toagreewiththisaspect of our thought to catch ourmain intent, which is to show thepervasiveness,workings,andperilofauthoritariancontrol.Theneededchangecannotcomefromaperson(orgroup)claimingto

havespecialaccesstothetruth,asthisistheverymodethatneedstobechanged. Neither do we think the new can emerge until the limits ofboth old forms and old processes are seen clearly. Authoritarianism ishidden in the fabricofmuch that is taken forgranted,often including

what is held by some to be sacred. Unmasking authoritarianism in agiven context does not necessarily negate the content. But it doesincrease the likelihood thatwhat is involved is farmore arbitrary andmoreafunctionofvestedinterestthanmeetstheeye.Theworld’scomplexcultures,nomatterhowseeminglydiverse,havein common the utilization of authoritarian control tomaintain power.Simplertribalculturesarenotexemptfromsuchcontrol,thoughittendsmore to lie in thegrouprather than inaspecific institutionorperson.Democracies are now struggling with not only their authoritarianelements,butwiththeresurgenceofauthoritarianfactions.Itisvitaltounderstandthedynamics,appeal,andscopeofthisaspectofourhumanheritage.Onlybyunlockingthebondsofauthoritarianism—notmerelyinsocialstructures,butinourownpsyches—canhumanityfindthekeytomeetingtheevolutionarychallengeourauthoritarianpastpresents us. Just as no one could have foreseen the present results oftechnology,thereisnowaytoenvisionalltheresultsthatatrueshiftinbasic values would bring. Authoritarianism is the element the oldparadigmsshare,andsothereisnowaytoknowwhathumanpossibilitywouldbewithout it. Forgingnon-authoritarian frameworks isnotonlythenewfrontier,itiswherehopelies.

CAuthority,Hierarchy,andPower

hangehasbecomea rallyingcryworldwide.This isbecause theneed for some kind of change is becoming increasingly self-

evident. Thequestions are inwhat direction to change andhow to goabout it. There are thosewhowant to change by going back to olderformsthatonceheldtheworld,ortheirworld,together.Othersseethenecessityof somethingnew; this isvoicedbycalling fora “newworldorder” or “basic paradigm shift.”When focusing on change, themajorconcern is usually the shape or form of the anticipated outcome. Yetanyoneinvolvedinanycreativeendeavorcomestorealizetheoriginalgoals rarely remain the same throughout the process. This is partiallybecausetheprocessitselfdetermineswhatkindofinformationisusedornotusedasfeedback.Consequently,whenreachingforsomethingnew,thewayonegoesaboutitgreatlyinfluencestheoutcome.Restructuring in social spheres involves restructuring power. If the

way the new order or paradigm shift is reached for is authoritarian,whateverresultswillbeauthoritarian.Anychangethisbringscanonlybeincontent,thatis,whoholdsthereinsofpower,butnotinthewaypowerisarrivedatandmaintained.Whatmakesaprocessauthoritarianis not always obvious because it is hidden in the values, traditions,rights,andprerogativespeopletakeforgranted.Thisbookexaminestheworkingsofauthoritarianpower,includingitsdeeprootsinthehumanpsyche. Though critical of authoritarianism, we do not suggest it ispossible to eliminate authority, hierarchy, or power from humaninteraction.Historynotwithstanding,wemaintaintheirutilizationneednotnecessarilybeauthoritarian.There are thosewho argue that authoritarian hierarchy is built into

thespecies,justasdominanceandsubmissionaregeneticallywiredintoothersocialanimals.Itcouldalsobearguedthatsexuality,competition,and aggression are linked in males and hard-wired in, and that thefemalebody isbiologicallyprogrammedtowant tohavechildren.One

could furtherargue that thereare (orwere)goodevolutionary reasonsforalltheabove.Thetruthorlikelihoodofsuchargumentsaside,doesabiological foundation necessarily mean biological determinism? If awoman’sbodyisgeneticallyprogrammedtowanttoreproduce,canshenot use her intelligence to circumvent biology if she deems itappropriate?Ifauthoritarianismwerefoundtobelinkedwithbiologicalmechanisms of dominance and submission, would this automaticallymeanhumanintelligenceishelplessbeforethem—eveniftheirmodeofoperation were threatening human existence? Even if dominance andsubmission, and more basically aggression, cannot ultimately beeliminated, humans still have the option of either catering to ormitigatingagainsttheirharmfulconsequences.The interplay between instinct and intentional intelligence is anongoingpart of thehumandrama.There is currently no consensus onthe nature and role of instinct within humans. All life-forms do whattheycantocontinuetolive—totheextentthatitcanbepostulatedthatitisinstinctualtodoso.Humanslargelysharethistrait,butonoccasiongoagainstit,andaretheonlyanimalthatwillfullykillsitself.Doesthismeanpeoplehavenoinstincttolive,orthatthehumanmindiscapableofoverridinginstinct?Ifthemindcanoverrideinstinctualbehaviorinaself-destructiveway,cannotitalsodosotobelife-affirming?Manyagree that life, especiallyhuman life, is at risk.Thisunderliesmuch of the impetus for change. Technological intelligence hasenormously leveragedpower soas to seriously threatennotonlyotherspecies, but humanity, too. Our perspective is thatwhat is preventingpeople from applying the same kind of stunning brilliance andinventivenesstosocialspheresareoldsocialandmoralframeworksthatareessentiallyauthoritarian.Modern democracy is an attempt to curb authoritarianism in thepoliticalsphere.Butifalargenumberofpeoplewithinademocracyaredeeply programmed by authoritarian beliefs and values, when crisescome, as they are bound to, the solutions resorted to will beauthoritarian.Ifsuchsolutionsarereallypartoftheproblem,thenwhatresultscanonlybringgreaterrisk.It is difficult to change or fix anything without first adequatelyunderstanding the nature of the problem. If authoritarianism is deeplyrooted,andoftenhidden,insocialstructuresandthehumanpsyche,itis

essential to understand how and why this is so. So often those whoabhor the results of authoritarianism still try to correct the perceivedinequities by authoritarian means. This not unusual tendency isexacerbated because the dynamics and collusions of power are hiddenandtheirimplicationsarenotsufficientlyseen.Authoritarianism is interwoven in, but not identical to, authority,hierarchy,andpower.Thischaptersetsthestagefortherestofthebookby mapping out how we distinguish these overlapping, intertwinedconceptsthataretoooftenlumpedtogether.Webster’sdictionarydefinesauthoritarian as “characterized by unquestioning obedience toauthority.”Whentheword isused inreferencetoapoliticalsystem, itinvolvesusingforcetocontrolpeoplewithouttherebeinganyrecourse.We broaden the meaning to include belief systems that areunchallengeable,andtheideathatsomeoneorsomethingotherthantheindividualnecessarilyknowswhat’sbest,orright,orproperforagivenperson. So ideologies and belief systems can be intrinsicallyauthoritarian if there is no way to take issue with their basicsuppositions.The extent of suffering caused by Nazism ignited interest in theauthoritarian personality that under certain circumstances will blindlyfollow orders, nomatter what. Both thewillingness to follow anotherunquestioningly,andwantingtobestrictlyobeyed,maybelinkedtoageneticprogramofdominanceand submissioncommon inother socialanimals. But whether or not there is such a genetic propensity inhumans, when dominance and submission are structured into socialformsandtaughttochildren,itbecomesimpossibletoseparateoutwhatis “natural” from what is contrived. Traditional sex roles are anotherexample of rigid social structures greatly exaggerating, distorting, andthen institutionalizing gender differences through conditioning, socialpressure,andevencoercion.Thistravestyofwhateverdifferencestheremaybeisthencalled“natural.”Not all people blindly obey.Moreover, if people are forced to obey,theywilltendtoforceotherstoobey,giventheopportunity.Ifchildrenare taught tomistrust themselves (a prerequisite for the authoritarianpersonality),asadultstheywillhavelittleoptionotherthanlookingforsomeone else to trust, especially under stress.What this shows is thatwhatever the genetic base, much of authoritarianism is taught. Until

children are raised to trust themselves, and social forms reward notpunish this, there is no basis for making nature the cause ofauthoritarianisminarenasofpower.Mentalorpsychologicalauthoritarianismcomesfromaninnerurgeto

obey someone or something that is viewed as higher, more powerful,morally superior, or more knowledgeable—or to be that for someoneelse.Thesetwostancesarenotmutuallyexclusive,butusuallycoexistinthe same person and are triggered by different circumstances. Even ifthis propensity, like aggression, is part of being human, this does notmean that authoritarianism and the forms of coercion and aggressionthatsupport itneedbecateredtooraccepted.Humanity’shope lies initscapacitynottoacceptthewayitspasthasbeenplayedout.Muchofpsychological authoritarianism ismasked by ideologies thatmake it avirtue.This is because it onlyworkswell if it is sufficientlyhidden sothatitappears“thewaytobe.”Unmaskingitsrootsanddynamicscan,attheveryleast,givepeoplemoreoptionsindealingwithit.Authoritarianismasawayofestablishingandmaintainingpowerhas

been so prevalent that it is often equated with power itself. Socialhierarchies are about power and authority. Morality has involved,amongotherthings,thejustificationofpowerandprivelage.Thisbookis an attempt to decode the historical and present foundations andworkings of power—but not through making power itself the villain.Like energy, power can be used creatively or destructively. From ourperspective,power is intrinsic toall relationships.Simplyput, it is thecapacity of an individual or system to influence in any way otherindividualsorsystems.Powerdoesnotexistinisolation;itisrelational.Tosay“xhaspower”isreallytosay“xhaspowerinrelationtoy.”InthisviewofpoweritwouldbecorrecttosaythatthesunhaspowertomaintainlifeonEarth,forwithoutittherewouldbenone.Thepowertosupport life is real power, as is the power to destroy it. To say anautomobile ispowerful is tosay itcandomore inrelationto theroadthan one that is less so. Beauty, wealth, physical strength, sexuality,anything that can capture or direct attention has power. Power is justthere in all relationships and cannot bedone awaywith. Trying to doawaywithitisjustanotherformofexercisingit.It is legend that power corrupts; butwhy?What is it in the human

arena that so lends itself to this? Also, those seeking power are often

maligned. To say that someone is on a power trip is usually not acompliment.However,totheextentthatoneisinterestedincontrollingone’sownlife,oneisnecessarilyinterestedinpower.Wantingnottobecontrolledortohaveatleastsomecontroloverwhatothersdoinvolvespower.Censorshipisacontrolissue,asiskeepingdrunkdriversofftheroads.Ifpoweriseverywhere,iscorruptiontheninescapable?Hereonemightobjectthatthewaytheword“power”isbeingusedistoobroad,andwanttolimititbysayingitiscoercivepowerthatcorrupts.Butdoesusing coercion with a child necessarily corrupt the parent? And whatconstitutes psychological coercion: social pressure? generating fear?making an offer that can’t be refused? seduction via filling neuroticneeds?alllawsandtheirrespectivepunishments?The corruptions of power occur when maintaining power becomescentralandmoreimportantthanitseffectonothers.Andalthoughthisdanger is presentwithin anyhuman interaction, it iswhenpower andpositionarelinkedthatthepossibilitiesofcorruptionaremagnified.Thepowerthatflowsfrompositionisseatedintheposition,andpositioniswhat hierarchy is all about. Lord Acton’s famous statement on power,“Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely,” is takenalmostasatruism.Inordertohaveabsolutepoweronemustbeatthetopofahierarchy.Itisthepowerwithinahierarchythatlendsitselftothegreatestabuseandcorruption.Soeventhoughonemaynotbeanti-power, it is still temptingtobeanti-hierarchy.Tounderstandwhythisstance isnomoreviable thanbeinganti-power,hierarchywillnextbeexamined.Theetymologyof theword“hierarchy”comes from theGreekhierosmeaning sacred, and archos meaning ruler. A hierarch is the high orhighestpriest, and fromhim the sacredWordwaspasseddown to thenext rank, who in turn passed it further down. The very concept ofhierarchy originated in the context of religionwhere the sacredWord(power) flowed only downward through a pyramidal structure.1 Oncepeople are positioned within such a structure, their main concernbecomes eithermaintaining their position ormoving up. Rights giventhrough birth or other mechanisms of status are the easiest andtraditional ways ofmaintaining position. Authoritarian hierarchies arejustified by an authoritarian worldview and morality. The reigningideologyestablishestherightsandprivilegesofthedifferentlevelsofa

hierarchy.Iftheideologyisauthoritarian,theworkingsofthehierarchywillbe, too.Democracyasapolitical ideologyinfluencedtheworkingsofhierarchiesunderitsbanner,sothatnotallpowerranonlyfromtopdown.Hierarchiesoccur innatureonphysical,biological,andsocial levels.

The solar system, the human body, and an ant colony all have ahierarchical component.Each isorganizedaccording todifferent levelsofpower.Thehumanbodycontainsorgans,cells,molecules,andatoms;anorganismorevitaltothebody’sfunctioningthananindividualcell.Othersocialanimalsalsoorganizeinoftenoverlappinghierarchieswithdifferentstructuresofdominance fordifferentspheresofactivity.Evenamongotheranimals,whenanypositionofdominanceisachieved,thereis noticeable reluctance to give it up. Hierarchies are natural, and inhumanstheremaybeanaturalaptitudefortheiruse.Allculturesinventandusematerialtools.Socialhierarchy,likethewheeloranytool,isahuman invention. Although seemingly very different they share someimportant features:bothenablehumanbeings todomore;bothspreadoncontactbetweencultures;onceeitherisutilizeditisneverdiscarded;botharetoolsthatleveragepower.Atthesimplest level,apersonwhousesawheelhastremendousadvantageinthedoingofcountlesstasks.Thosenotusingwheelseventuallycometorealizethis.Thesameistruefor social hierarchy—once it enters a social system there is no turningback.2As with any new tool that leverages power, those willing to utilize

hierarchy will win out over those who do not, should there be anyconflictorcompetitionbetweenthetwo.This isbecausehierarchy isamodelforinternalcooperationthatcancontainanddirectlargenumbersofpeople. It is themostefficientmeans foundtodate forcoordinatingthe specialization of tasks. The end result of this is that hierarchy notonlypermitsaculturetousemorepeopleefficiently,buttohavemorepeople. It supports and promotes expansion and accumulation. Shouldtherebeanycompetitionforterritory,resources,etc.,acultureutilizinghierarchycanabsorbonethatdoesnot,whilethereverseisnottrue.Sinceauthoritarianismisinherentlyhierarchical,onecaneasilythink

thathierarchyitselfisnecessarilyauthoritariangiventhatauthoritarianhierarchy has been and is humanity’smainway of organizing people.Hierarchy as a way of organizing and leveraging power has been

villainized by people of such differing theoretical persuasions asMarxists, anarchists, feminists, tribalists, and others with egalitariantastes. This is because hierarchies impose an unequal distribution ofpowerandauthoritythatseemsinevitablytocongealintoauthoritarianstructures whose main task ends up being perpetuating the hierarchyitselfandtheself-interestof thoseontop—nomatterwhat theirstatedpurpose. We, too, have a deep distaste for authoritarian hierarchies.However, it is not possible to do away with hierarchy itself as amechanismfororganization.Anyattempttodosocanonlysucceedbysupplantingoneforanother.Thisisbecausethenatureofpoweristhatitnever stays equallydistributed, andanyattempt to force equalityofpoweritselfbecomeshierarchical.Authoritarianhierarchiesfosterandrewardwhatcanbedescribedas

the authoritarian virtues. They help run the hierarchy smoothly bypromoting the moral complacency and unconsciousness necessary toenable people to ignore how power actually operates within thehierarchy.Thesevirtuesareloyalty,duty,andobedience.We,too,valueand respect loyalty—if deserved; duty—if self-generated; and evenobedience—iffreelycontractedforalongahighlydefined,specific,andlimited band of activity. But when loyalty, duty, and obedience arevaluedinthemselves,theybecometherationaleforusingotherswithoutregard for theirwell-being.Wecall this “ideologicaluncaringness,” forprotectingtheideologiesthatjustifythehierarchytakesprecedenceoverpeople. The “I was following orders” excuse exemplifies valuingobedienceoverconsequencestopeople.Hierarchy is a way of structuring power; authority is a way of

exercising it; and ultimatelymorality is theway authority is justified.Theoldmoralordersareauthoritarian,constructingfixed,absoluterulestoobey.“Thoushaltnotkill”isarule,butthewillingnesstokillthosewhobreaktherule(andothers,too)showsthatwhat’sreallyimportantisnottherule,butprotectingthe

authority behind the rule.3 The way authority is maintained andprotected is the key to whether the authority is authoritarian. Ifhierarchy cannot be done away with, then the only way to protectagainstthecorruptionofpowerwithinitistoensuretheauthoritythatisbasedonpositioninthehierarchyisnotbottom-lineauthoritarian.Isthispossible?

Not all authority is authoritarian, and it is crucial to distinguish thedifference. Authority may be vested in a position, a role, or someperceived capacity within an individual—these three are ofteninterwoven.Ifoneisconsideredanauthorityonhealth,thismeansthepersonhassomedegreeofexpertiseinthefield.Thedoctorrolecontainsanassumptionofexpertise,asdoestheteacherroleandtheparentrole.The roleof guruor roshihaswithin it theassumption that thepersonwhotakeson,orisgiven,thatroleknowsbest(oratleastbetter)whatlifeisaboutandhowtoliveit.Herethereasonforauthorityispresumedspecial knowledge. Such authority can be more or less authoritariandependingonhowitisexercisedandhowitisreceived.Thegururoleisstructuredtobeauthoritariangiventhatunquestionedobediencetotheguruismadetheprimevirtue.4On thepersonal level, it isnot toodifficult to seewhenauthority isauthoritarian. If an authority not only expects to be obeyed withoutquestion,buteitherpunishesorrefusestodealwiththosewhodonot,thatauthority isauthoritarian.Andontheotherside, ifpeoplebelievetheymustobeywithoutquestion inorder to receivewhateverbenefitsthe authority has to offer, and they are correct, the relationship isauthoritarian.However,authoritybasedonknowledgeorevenroledoesnot necessarily have to be authoritarian. Experts can share theirexpertise without expecting either agreement or obedience, and rolessuchasteacherneednotbeauthoritarian.Peoplecanseekguidanceandyetremainthefinaljudgeforthemselves.Establishingwhethertheauthorityvestedinapositiononahierarchyis authoritarian is more difficult. Because authoritarianism constructsand works through hierarchy, and because the authority withinhierarchies isoftenstructuredtobeunchallengeable fromlower levels,hierarchy itself appears to be intrinsically authoritarian. But hierarchycanbe used as a tool, and as such, constructed in differentways. Thecriteria of whether a given hierarchy is authoritarian can only beestablished by how it’s used, and how power is exercised tomaintainauthority within it. The difference between firing people fordisobedienceandshootingthemisnotadifferenceofdegree,butabasicdifference. A contract to obey in a specified domain in exchange formoneyisdifferentfromobediencefromwhichonecannotwithdraw.Building a house usually involves a hierarchy of authority. A

contractor contracts out different tasks to different roles: carpenter,electrician, etc.—each with specific expertise. Each in turn may havehelpers,andinalargeprojectthehelpersmayhavehelpers.Anyinthehierarchywho refuse todowhat theyare told todowith reference tothejobmaybefired.Ifanelectricianfiresahelperbecausehedidnotorcouldnotobey,isthisanauthoritarianuseofpower?Certainlyitlookslikeit,foritinvolvesa“Doitorelse”attitude.Yet,theveryworkingsofhierarchyoftenrequire thedifferent levels (positions)doingwhat theirsuperiorswant. An electrician’s helpermay disobey orders because hebelievesheknowsbetterhowtodohisjob.Hemayevenberightinsofaras his job is concerned. But the contractor may be operating underdifferentconsiderationsoftime,money,anddesign.Tryingtoexplaintoeverypersononthe jobwhythingsarebeingdonethiswayinsteadofthat is oftennot thebestway toget the jobdone. Likewise, a generalcannothavehisorderssubjecttoevaluationbyeverysoldierinthefield.(This would not even be in the soldier’s interest as it would increaserisk.)Amilitaryhierarchycannotworkwellwithoutobediencethatisatleastsometimesunquestioned.Thisistrueforotherhierarchiesaswell.Fortunately, the problems within hierarchy are not intrinsic to thestructure of hierarchy itself, but rather come out of theway power isordered andmaintainedwithin it. The functionof hierarchy is to giveauthority and thuspower toposition. If one looks only at the internalworkings of a hierarchy, there is an aspect that is inherentlyauthoritarian,invaryingdegrees.Insayingthathierarchydoesnothaveto be authoritarian, what is meant is that the way hierarchy itselfstructures power is the issue, not the way power is exercised at anyparticular level or moment. What this boils down to is whether ahierarchyisessentiallypower-drivenortask-driven.Indeterminingthisand in judgingwhether a hierarchy is essentially authoritarian or not,onefacesthefollowingconsiderations:

1.Whatisitspurpose?2.Whodecidesifitspurposeisbeingfulfilledandhowisthisdecided?3.Howfreeare themembersof thehierarchytoenterand leave it?That is,howmuchcoercionisinvolvedingettingpeopletobelongandstay?

4.Howresponsiveisittochangefromwithinorwithout,andhowopenisittointernalandexternalfeedback?Thisincludeswhodetermineswhatisevenconsideredrelevantfeedback.

5. Inwhatdirectiondoes thepower flow?Does itonly flowfromtop tobottom,oraretheremechanismswithinthestructureofthehierarchythatgivethelowerrungsasayinwhothehigherrungsareandwhattheydo?

Determiningwhetherahierarchy isbasically task-orpower-driven isobscured because power-driven hierarchies nearly always presentthemselves as performing tasks—often oneswith the highest soundingideals.Thekeyquestionindeterminingtherealnatureofahierarchyis“Inwhose interest is the task?”When themain task of a hierarchy isreallyeither theperpetuationofpoweror theaggrandizementof thoseontop, it ispower-driven.TheCrusadeshadthetaskofconvertingtheinfidelfortheirowngoodandforthegloryofGod.Whatthistaskwasreally about was increasing the power of the church by extending itsreach,andalsobygettingridoftroublesomenobles.TheCrusadeswerepower-driven,aswerethehierarchiesinvolvedinbuildingtheEgyptianpyramids.NeithertheinfidelsnortheEgyptianlaborerswereconsultedabouttheirwell-being.Hierarchy and authority are part of the human landscape. Both

becomeauthoritarianwhentheirmaintaskbecomesmaintainingpower.Toavoidthis,careandvigilancearenecessarytocounterthestructural,historical,andpsychologicalhabitsofpower.Apurposeofanyhierarchyis to bring order. But the real question is what is the purpose of theorder itbrings?The taskofmaintainingorder is the raison-d’êtreofallpower-drivenhierarchies.Toooftentherealpurposeoforderistokeeppowerinthehandsofthosewhohaveit.Itispossibletoconstructtask-driven hierarchies that mitigate against the usual tendency to be orbecome authoritarian. Democracy attempts to do this throughmechanismsthatcandislodgepeoplefromposition,andbygivingthosebelow some power in determining who those above are. Othermechanismscanbestructuredintoahierarchyitself,or intothe largersocialcontextinwhichthehierarchyisembedded,todissolveitonceitstaskiscompletedoronceitbecomesclearthatitstaskisnotbeingdoneproperly.Thehierarchythat formsforbuildingahousedissolveswhenthetaskiscomplete.House building is a simple task compared to, say, taking care of

people’s health within a social order. Especially with tasks that neverend,unlessthehierarchiesconstructedhavemechanismstoensuretheyaretask-driven,theywillmostlikelybecomepower-driven.Weusethe

term “power-driven” when the overt or professed task of a hierarchybecomes secondary tomaintainingor increasing itspower. If a societywants to guard against the corruptions of power,mechanismsmust beput in place and watched carefully to ensure that hierarchies remaintask-driven.Thisisbecausewhenone’spowerandprivilegesflowfromposition,protectingthepositioneasilybecomesthemainconcern.Humansareextraordinarilyinventive,andthereisnoreasonwhythis

capacity could not be directed toward constructing ways to mitigateagainst power becoming authoritarian.All that is needed is an overallconsensus that it is important to do so. The Bill of Rights in the U.S.Constitution is one such mechanism. In recent years, however, morepowerhasbeengiventoauthorities,withfar lessrecourseavailable tothose on the receiving end of that power. Nowwhatwere consideredbasicrightsarebeingcurtailed,andpeoplehaveactuallyvotedtotaketheir own rights away. This is occurring because the old order isunraveling,bringingviolence,disorder,and fear.Outof fear, ifpeopleareconditionednottotrustthemselves,theywillgiveawaywhatpowertheyhavetothosetheythinkcanprotectthem.Theproblemisthat indoingso,oneisnolongerprotectedfromone’sprotectors.Thelessonsofhistory unequivocally show this leads to corrupt, power-drivenhierarchiesthatcarelittleaboutthewell-beingofpeople.Theworldisnowatacusp,facingtheneedforrestructuringpower.If

power is restructured through authoritarian means, it will lead toauthoritarian ends, and not be new at all. Mechanisms are needed tochange authoritarian systems so that “reforms”donot become the oldsystemsindisguise.Technologyhascreatedacontextofcomplexitythatoldauthoritarianmethodsareincapableofdealingwitheffectively.Thisis because the way technology leverages power over people andplanetaryresourcesistoogreattobeleftinthehandsofapowerelite.Thechallenge facinghumanity ishow tousehierarchy, authority, andpower inways that protect against age-old authoritarian predilections.Hierarchyandauthorityneednotbeessentiallyauthoritarian;normustthe utilization of power guarantee corruption. But when power andauthority are contained within authoritarian hierarchies, harm,exploitation,andcorruptionareensured.1“ThePower ofAbstraction: The SacredWord and the Evolution ofMorality” describes the

relationbetweenthesacredWordandpower,aswellasthemajorstagesofreligiousabstraction

andcontrol.2See“ThePowerofAbstraction”ontheoriginofsocialhierarchyanditslinkwithagriculture

andaccumulation.3See“FundamentalismandtheNeedforCertainty”onthedoublestandardimplicitinthisrule

andthewayspeoplejustifybreakingit.4“TheAttractionsofCultHierarchy”showshowparticipationinanauthoritarianhierarchyis

aneasyroutetopurpose,meaning,andsecurity.Seealso“RecognizingAuthoritarianControl”in“TheSeductionsofSurrender.”

Part1

PersonalMasks

TReligion,Cults,andtheSpiritualVacuum

he human mind is not comfortable with large areas of caprice,uncertainty,anddisorder; it iscontinuallystructuringexperience

tomaketheunknownknown.Inthepast,andstilltoday,religionshavebeenthevehiclethatbroughtorderandcertaintytothemostuncertainandarguablymost important facetsof life:Wheredoes life come fromandwheredoes itgo?Howshould Iact towardothers?What is reallyimportant? Can I touch into something that canmoveme beyond theinequities, pains, and suffering of life, as well as beyond the endlessdemands of the self for self-enhancement?Can I touch into somethingpurethatcanmakeeverythingokay?Religionshavebeen(andformanystillare)themainvehiclesthrough

whichtheunknownwasmadeatleasttoseemmoreknown.Theyeachoffer a worldview containing explanations of the basic elements ofexistence,namely,howall things, includinghumanbeings,cametobe(creation); what life is about (meaning, continuity, and preservation);how and why things cease to be (death and destruction). WithinHinduism,thesecategoriesareovertlyportrayedasthethreepersonasofGod:BrahmatheCreator,VishnuthePreserver,andShivatheDestroyer.

ReligionandMorality

Moralityisthegluethatholdscivilizationtogether;andwithincomplexaccumulationcultures,religionhasbeenthefoundationorunderpinningofmorality,andthusofcivilization itself.Since there isaneedfor therules about how to treat each other to be considered not merelyarbitrary,theyhadtobegroundedinsomehigherauthority.Historicallyreligion, as the only purveyor of presumptive absolute truths, had therighttodictatewhat’sright.Religionsgavemeaninganddirectiontolifebypositingtheexistenceofahigherpowerorauthoritywhosepurposecould at least be dimly known. Morality, the abstract concept ofgoodness or right human action, came to be defined as being alignedwith that higher purpose. Presumed divinely inspired humanintermediaries,orthedivineinhumanform(Christ),delineatedwhattodoandhowtobe.1Religionshavethuspresentedthemselvesasthebridgetothespiritual

via their formalizedcodesand traditions.Basically theyput forthrulesofacceptablebehaviorthattemperself-centeredness.Theyalsochannelexpressionsof self-centeredness into areasof acceptability, legitimizingthemthroughtheconceptsof“rights,”anddeservedprivileges.SoifGodgiveshumansdominionoverallotherlife,thisgiveshumanstherighttouse what is considered “lesser.” Using others without regard for theirwell-beingisoneexpressionofself-centeredness.Throughrights,rulerscouldusevassals,andhusbandsusewives.Tofacilitatethis, themajorextantworld religions all promulgate a “renunciate”moralitywhereinone is expected to renounce and sacrifice self-interest to a designatedhighergood.Theyallpresentself-centeredness in itsdifferent formsasthe villain keeping people away from what religion designates asimportant.Tobespiritual,onemust surrenderone’swill to thewillofGodortothelawsofkarma,whichusuallyinvolvessomekindofself-sacrifice.Thisusedtoworkinimposingandmaintainingorderandstability,if

not social justice. Idealizing sacrifice and placing selflessness at thepinnacleofvirtuedidtoanextenttemperthewaypeopletreatedeach

other—atleastwithinsocieties,ifnotbetweenthem.Ontheotherhand,theseeminglybenign idealof selflessness,which includes self-sacrifice,masks the way organized religions have provided a morality thatsupportssocialandreligioushierarchybyjustifyingtheuse(andabuse)of the higher over the lower. This includes tacitly and even overtlylegitimizingwhateverviolence thehigherdeemsnecessary tokeep thelower low, and outsiders outside. Another way renunciate religionssupport the power structure is by viewing hardship as either deserved(original sin), or as part of a morality play whose purpose is to givelessonstolearn,andtotestforrighteousness.Thiswayofframingbothpowerlessnessandabusemakesiteasierforpeopletoresignthemselvestotheiroftennotverypleasantlot.Italsomakesiteasiertobeinuredtothelotofothers.Traditional religiousworldviewsattempt toassuagehumanity’sbasicfears of the unknown, of chaos, and of death. They all promise someform of continuance after the body dies, with thosewho do the rightthing(astheydefineit)gettingabetterdeal.Beliefinandobediencetoreligion’s precepts bring the kind of peace that only comes fromunwavering certitude. Faith is the coin necessary for certainty, whichbringsthecessationof(atleastconscious)doubtandfear.EvilisexplainedbymostWesternreligionsasanecessity,foritalonegives the freedomofmoralchoice;choosinggoodoverevil is theonlyway to prove one is worthy of salvation. Much of Eastern religiousthought,ontheotherhand,views“evil”asaproductoftheillusionofseparateness—it, too, being ultimately an illusion. Here evil isconsidered ignorance, a lack, as opposed to an autonomous force. Thespiritual path becomes the march away from ignorance towardsenlightenment. Although seemingly different, in both the East and theWest, religions make the cruelties and tragedies within the humandramaappearanecessarypartofahigherplan,witheitherapersonalorimpersonalhigherintelligencefirmlyatthehelm.Reward and punishment, guilt, shame, and forgiveness—this is thestuffreligionsuseforcontrol.Sinceitisobviousthatthevirtuousdonotalways benefit and sinners do not always suffer, to make this systemworkitisnecessarythatthemajorrewardsandpunishmentstakeplaceinanafterlife.Thisishowimmortality(whetherheavenorabetternextlifetime)becamethefoundationofmorality.Insofarasthislifeismade

subordinate tosomeconceptionofanafterlife, sacrificewithin this lifenotonlybecomesjustifiable,butisakeypartofanyrenunciatemoralitythatcontrolsbehaviorthroughfearofcosmicreprisalafterdeath.

TheChallengeofScience

Atitscore,thesearchformeaningisasearchforawaytolive,perhapsultimatelyforareasontolive.Inthepast,meaningwasalwaysgiventousbyexternals—byculturalorfamilialtraditionswhichwerethemselvesfiltered throughareligioussystemat the foundationof itall. Ifpeoplesurrendered to this socially imposed meaning, it made life simple bybringing alignment, and with it, conformity. In fact, most people hadlittle realchoicebut tocomplybecausebasic survivalwasproblematicand often impossible outside the group framework. Unchallengeablecertainty became thebasis for group consensus, out ofwhichmanyoftheconflictsandambiguitiesoflifewereeithernotfeltornotconscious.Religion’s unique psychological strength and appeal revolve around

bringing certainty. What really matters is not so much the specificcontentofareligion,buthowsureoneisofitsworldview.Thatis, it’snotnearlyasimportanthowtrueorfalseabeliefisashowcertainoneisofit.Allreligiouscertaintyissimilarinthatthebeliefsoneiscertainofcoat and comfort fear. This kind of certitude brings forth a particularstate of peace through giving meaning, purpose, and a sharedcommunityofbelievers.Thenoneknowswhatonemustdo,whyoneishere,andwhereoneisgoing.Andevenmorespecifically,thereislittleconflictabouthowtoraiseone’schildren,howtotreatothers,whoonecancounton,andsoon.Nowonderitisnotunusualtohearpeoplesaywistfully,“Ireallywish

IcouldstillbeaCatholic[oraJeworProtestant]asIoncewas.”Whatthey’re wistful for is certainty, with clear-cut rules and roles that aremore relaxing and comforting than living with ambiguity. In the pastpeople have been able to achieve some semblance of peace in thisfashion, and perhaps on rare occasions, even real peace. But in thisparticularhistoricalmoment,formany,religionsarenolongerworkingas vehicles for certainty. It is now more difficult to believeunquestioninglyinthem.Assoonasquestioningbegins,certaintyleaves—andwith it thekindofpeacethat italonecanbring.Allvarietiesoffundamentalismmustcontinuallystruggletopreservecertaintybecause

certaintyistheirmajorlure.2Sciencehasbeenpeelingawayat themysteries forcenturies,and indoing so, has undermined the symbolisms thatwere constructed at anearliertimetoanswertheneedsofayounger,simplerhumanity.Ithaseroded the absoluteness of belief through valuing change andquestioningoverfaith.Copernicus,Newton,andDarwinmadetheliteralinterpretation or acceptance of the Bible difficult. Einstein supersededNewton.Whatnext?Onemay try tousequantummechanics to justifythe Upanishads, or the Big Bang theory to justify the creation of theuniverse by a transcendent God, but how long will these theories beaccepted?Theproblem is that science candestroymyth,but it cannotcreate personal meaning or values. This is why many still accept themoral dictates of religions long after ceasing to believe in theworldviews that produced them. Many people who are no longerreligious,includingprofessedagnostics,sendtheirchildrentochurchorSundayschoolforapropermoraleducation.Herereligiousteachersareconsidered specialists in morality in a not dissimilar way topsychologistsbeingconsideredspecialistsofthemind.Thenatureofreligionsistoshroudwhatevertruthstheymaycontainin symbols,myths, andmysteries,which are then purported to be thebridge or the intermediary to the truth. These symbols and ritualsbecome culturally and personally imbued with meaning and emotionthatexertamagneticpull,evenonthosewhonolongerbelieveintheirliteralnessororigin(e.g.Christmas).Itisinevitablethatthesymbols,intime, become more important than what they symbolize, given thatpeople’scontactislargelywiththem.Religioussymbols,ofwhateversort,aretransmittedfromhumanmindto human mind orally or through writings and images, and have aconcretenessthatmustcrystallizeovertime.Asthesesymbolsarealwayshistorically bound, the movement of time eventually erodes theirrelevance. Yet religious symbols that promulgate certainty maintainpowerbyconstructingaworldviewthatremainsfixed.Thustheycannotexpressafluiditythatallowsforbasicchangeandevolution.From our perspective, there is a dialectically shifting interplaybetweensuchdynamicuniversaloppositionsascreationanddestruction,self and other, individuation and merging, unity and division,competition and cooperation, and control and surrender. Rather than

eachelementbeingautonomous, thetwosidesof theseoppositionsareembedded within, and dependent upon, each other. They are alsoembedded in history, displaying a unique emphasis and expressionwithindifferentepochs.Astimemovesandepochschange,anysymbolthat freezes meaning becomes heavy and laden with the past. Whatresultsisagreaterandgreaterdistancingbetweenthesymbolandthatwhichitisattemptingtosymbolize.Certainty derives from conviction in a religion’s symbolic structures,whichnotonly include itsmythsandparables,butalso its “laws”andprescribedduties.Astheybecomemoreanachronistic,somepeopleholdonto themmore rigidly.Others revise and refurbish the oldmeanings,reinterpretingthesymbolsandprescriptionsinanattempttomakethemmore credible and livable. Still others allow doubt and questioning tocreep in. The culture no longer has amental field of consensus.Witheachpassinggeneration, certainty anda senseof communitybasedontheoldsharedvaluesbecomemoredifficulttomaintain.Thisisthebeginningofbreakdown.ThereismuchtalkthesedaysofthemoraldecayofWesterncivilization.What this reallymeans is thattheholdtheoldsystemofmoralityhadoverpeople’sactionsisfailing,andnothingviablehasyettakenitsplace.Whentraditionalviewpointsfalter, avacuumofmeaning results.Theerosionof religious certainty,whichwas the foundation and authority formorality, is creatingwhatweconsideran inevitable rendor tear in themovementofhistory.Ononesideisanincreasingpushtowardfundamentalism,whosestanceisthatallcurrentproblemscomefromstrayingfromtheveritiesofold.Ontheothersideareaspectrumofexperiments,bothinthe“spiritual”andsecularspheres,thatareeitherreachingforsomethingnew,orreactingagainst the repressions within the old. Though painful and sometimesdestructive, the opposition between fundamentalism andexperimentalism, conformity and deviance—in short, the old and thenew—isinevitablewhenmoralsystemsarebreakingdown,astheyaretoday.3Science and technology have leveraged power in ways that createethicalproblemsthattheoldmoralorders,whichwereconstructedlongbefore,cannothandle.Amongotherthings,sciencehasgreatlyincreasedthecapacitytokill,useandexploitresources,pollute,centralizepower,andincreaseboththenumbersanddensityofpopulation.Alltheseare

major factors in the current crisis. The question now before us iswhether the intelligence that tapped into nature, creating a self-destructingjuggernaut,isalsocapableofconstructingviablesystemsofinteraction.Thiswouldnotonly include thewayspeople interactwitheachother,butwithallplanetarysystems.Anethicsforsurvivalisneededthatmakeswhatgoesoninthisworld

ofparamountimportance.Onereasonforthisbookisthatweviewtheoldauthoritarianmoralitieswith their renunciatevalues aspart of theproblem now leading us to the brink of extinction.We recognize thatthesemoralitieswere an integral part of theway humanity structuredpower, enabling expansion in what was then a world of unlimitedresources.Wemaintainthatthesemoralitiesarenotviableinaworldoflimitwhereanexpandinghumanityhasbecomeacoreproblem.Somesolace and a guarded optimism may be found in realizing that deepstructuralchangecannotcomewithoutthebreakdownofoldways.Itisonly from this place of tension, backlash, and crisis that viable valuesthatmeet themovementofhistorycanemerge.Thus thesetimes,withtheirtruedangersandrealuncertainties,areapoignant,livingexampleofthepressuresofsocialevolutioninaction.When people believed in the afterlife retributions of the old moral

order,thisdidtemper,oratleastchannel,expressionsofviolence.Itdidnot,however,eliminatetheinjusticesandensuinghatredsproducedbythe social order of which it was an integral and justificatory part.Violencewas sanctioned inwar and in theways hierarchies of powercould protect designated rights. Throughout much of human history,killing,orthethreatofit,hasbeenthebottomlineofpower.Thisisstilloperative.Fear is structured into all renunciate religions through proclaiming

that some higher power is watching all actions (sometimes eventhoughts) and will reward or punish them as deserved. This higherpower is usually portrayed as a God that saves or damns, or animpersonal force such as karma giving better or worse next lifetimes.Here fear iswoventhroughout thewebofmorality in the formof“Dogood and itwill ultimately pay off; do bad and you’ll be sorry.” Suchreligions sometimes subtly let it be known that this relentlesslyjudgmental forcemustbe feared,whether itbea stern father figure,apersonification of destruction such as Shiva and Kali, or an abstract

conceptlikethetheoryofkarma.4Noneof thisworkswellanymore.As theoldbeliefs thatmaintainedorder disintegrate, another kind of fear arises—of purposelessness,chaos, and violence. Basically,what this boils down to is fear of eachother.Giventhehatredsandinequitiesproducedbytheoldorder,suchfearsarenotunrealistic.Trytellingaghettogangmemberthatunlesshestops being violent hewill go to hell.His response could easily be, “Idon’thavefartogo—I’mtherealready.”Every taboo is nowbeing challenged and broken.We are living outthe Freudian “return of the repressed”—Hitler, Vietnam, Hiroshima,purges in Russia and China, brutality, pain, and bloodshed on such avast scale themind cannot handle it.And on themore personal level,thereisnotaformallytaboobehaviorthemindcanconceiveofthatisn’tsomewhere being acted out, and even publicly justified. In Penthousemagazine, a spokesman for a group of acknowledged child molesterscameoutwith adeclaration stating that initiating young children intosexisgoodforthemasitfreesthemsexually.Satanism,rape,incest,andtheglorificationofpaininsadismarenowbeingopenlyacknowledged,evenromanticized.Somenewvaluesystemssupportabrittlehedonismand even extol an unabashed “me first” self-centeredness. This isexemplifiedbyphrasesinthepopularculturesuchas:“Theonewhodieswiththemosttoyswins,”or“AllIcareaboutiswhatempowersme.”

WhoDefinesRealityinReligionsandCults?

It isnot surprisingwhenoldwaysarebreakingdownthatpeople seekotheravenuesforcertainty,comfort,andprotection.Charismaticleadersinevitablyspringupintimesofcrisisandturmoil.Inrecentyears,manypeople submitted themselves to a spectrum of spiritual teacherspromising some form of salvation. Are gurus, as they claim to be, anecessary doorway to religious experiences that make life moreprofound?Orrather,aretheyfillingdeepneedsandthusinadvertentlypointingtotroublespotsandlacksinthefabricofourculture,aswellasrevealingthedepthofourconditioningtowantauthoritiesandmistrustourselves?Looking for saviors or holders of specialwisdomas theway to lead

humanity(oroneself)tosalvationorsurvivalhasbeeningrainedintheold order. It is a core part of the unconscious authoritarianismdeeplyinterwoveninthehistory,traditions,andmythsofallcomplexcultures.Behind much of the appeal of such authorities lies the primitive andessentially childish hope of an external and magical answer to theexistential problems and fears around living and dying. Theguru/disciple relationship is a formal structure of extremeauthoritarianism.Itthusoffersaquintessentialexemplarofcontrolandsurrender, displayingmechanical processes that reinforce predilectionstoward submission. It alsoelucidates inbas-relief theworkingsofwhatmaybecalledthecultmentality.Hereand throughout thisbook, theword“cult” isused ina specific

waytorefertogroupswithanauthoritarianstructurewheretheleader’spower is not constrained by scripture, tradition, or any other “higher”authority. This is a major difference between a cult and a traditionalreligion or sect that has become an accepted part of the culture.Probably all religions with an individual founder started as cults,becoming organized religions when, through widespread socialacceptance, thestructure itselfanditssymbolsbecamemoreimportantthan the individual leaders who succeeded the founder. Cults becomereligionswhenevertheybuilduptraditions,abodyofmyths,parables,

scriptures,anddogmasthatareinterpretedandprotectedbyspecialists(priests,etc.)whoseethemselvesastheguardiansofthetruth,notthebringersofit.Religious structures have as their ultimate authority either sacredwritings or truths that are passed on orally, from generation togeneration. The basic authority of religion is therefore tradition(statements, beliefs, and holy books from and about the past). Thismakes religious leaders the interpreters and perpetrators of tradition,muchofwhichhas been sacralized; thus they are only able to changethingsuptoapoint.Eventhepopeisconstrainedbytheofficeheholds.Asaone-timecardinalelectedbypeers,heisfirstamongequalsandnotnecessarily considered either morally or spiritually superior. He, too,must confess. Although the pope is theoretically the last word onspiritual matters in Catholicism, he is so only as an interpreter; theamountofreformorchangehecanactuallybringforthislimited.In a cult, absolute authority lies in a leader who has few if anyexternalconstraints.Thismeanstheleader(whoisusuallythefounder)isnotmerelytheinterpreterbutisalsothecreatoroftruth,andthushasfreereininwhatheproposes.Whetherornothisauthorityrestsuponatraditionorreligion,heisreveredaseitherGod’suniquevesselorasanactualmanifestationofthelivingGodorthegod-force.Likereligions,cultsoffermeaning,purpose,identity,andcommunity.But the feeling of unity is more intense in cults as their internalcohesiveness depends on protecting the purity of the group fromoutsiders. Thus there is relentless group pressure for loyalty andconformity.Associalanimals,manyofourstrongestfeelingscomefromgroup alignment. Cults offer a powerful matrix that breaks throughindividualboundariesandamplifiesenergy.Oftenwhatgrabsthepersonis not a specific leader or ideology, but rather the configuration ofemotions that is part of the state of surrender itself.Gurus can arouseintense emotions as there is extraordinary passion in surrendering towhatoneperceivesasalivingGod.Theinbuiltpotentialforviolenceislikewise great. Should the guru become paranoid, greedy, or merelybored,asmanydo,theycangettheirdisciplestodomostanything.5Easternreligionshaveagreatertendencytocreateleaderswhodonothave constraints, since the spiritually realized (the “enlightenedones”)areheldtobeofatrulydifferentorderthanordinarypeople.Mostgurus

present themselves as being beyond the foibles resulting from ego.6Theoretically,Easternreligionsofferthepossibilityofanyoneachievinggodhood and the infallibility this implies. In contrast, Christianity,Judaism,andIslamaretranscendentdualismswhereGodisthecreatorofitall,andisafundamentallydifferentorderofbeing.InChrist,Godwasuniquelyportrayedasbecomingpartiallyhuman,buthumans canneverbecomeGod.Thosemysticswhofeltotherwisewerechargedwithheresy.For many, Western religions have failed in offering a viableworldview.TounderstandtheappealofgurusforWesterners,onemustunderstandtheappealofEasternthoughtitself.Inadditiontopromisesof experiencing cosmic consciousness, Eastern religions offer threeelementsthatareparticularlyappealing:1)aperspectivedetachedfromthe involvementsof individuated life thatultimatelyseeseverythingasperfect; 2)practices thatbringdetachment fromemotionsandworldlydesires;and3)inkarma/rebirth,asystemthatguaranteesmoraljustice,the potential of continual improvement, and an open-ended existence.The idea of a detached cosmic perspective is new tomostWesternerseven though it appears in Western thought, Spinoza’s “view frometernity” being an example. At first blush, it seems very unlike theemotional involvementwith thepersonalGodofChristianity.Actually,thegurubecomesthedisciple’spersonallivinggod,whocanigniteevengreateremotionsthanagodwhosepresenceisnotphysicallytangible.We consider any worldview renunciate whose solutions to life’sproblems involve making what goes on in this world and this lifesecondary to some projected other kind of existence deemed moreimportant and sacralized. This can at times alleviate personal despair,but historically has not—and from our perspective cannot—solve theproblems that make renunciation appealing.7 Withdrawing from theworldismuchmoreappealingwhenthereissomewheretowithdrawto.Increasingly, there is nowhere to go to escape external or internaldisorder. Escaping through comforting beliefs is not a goodmodel forsurvival.A task of this book is to show that renunciateworldviews and theirmoralities are necessarily authoritarian, and why the solutions theygeneratehavebecomeakeypartoftheproblem.Thisissobecausetheveryconstructionofacategoryconsideredsacredautomaticallycreates

thenon-sacred.Once thisoccurs,valuingsacrificeof thenon-sacred tothe sacred is inevitable, as are unchallengeable authorities that definehowthisistobedone.Thisparadigmhasbeenakeycontrollerontheplanet for thousands of years, the results ofwhich are for us the besttestament that something else is needed. A blatant example is theCatholicChurchmaking it difficult for awomannot to have children,becausesacrificingherlifeandherbodyispartofGod’swill.8TheGuruPaperscritiquestheguru/discipleliaisonbecauseitisaclear-

cut example of the old, no longer appropriate paradigm of spiritualauthority. It is not thatwedoubt that somewhoare consideredgurushave deeper insights than their followers. Yet even with the bestintentions, assuming the role of spiritual authority for others sets inmotion a system of interaction that is mechanical, predictable, andcontains the essence of corruption. Another purpose of this book is toshowthatcorruptionisnotsimplythefailureorweaknessofaspecificindividual, but is structurally built into any authoritarian relationship,andlessobviously,anyrenunciatemorality.Surrendertoaguru,thoughawayoffillingaspiritualvacuum,isalso

oneofthemostpowerfulformsofmentalandemotionalcontrolontheplanet today. Especially insidious are the images of superiority tied tothe presumption of greater wisdom, moral purity, or an enlightenedstate.Whetherornotthereisanyrealitybehindtheseprojectionscanbeendlessly debated. The issue for us is not who has more wisdom orinsight,butratherhowthispresumedwisdomisused.Assertingthatonehuman being fundamentally knows what’s best for another isauthoritarian. If this is accepted, it sets up a chain of inevitablerelationalpatternsthataredetrimentaltoallplayersofthegame.

ReexaminingtheSacred

The yearnings to connect with something more profound than ourindividuallivesmaybecalledareligiousorspiritualimpulse.Religionshave long been theway societies have structured this impulse.We donot question the need for people to connect with something moreprofoundthantheirownpersonaldramas.Wedoquestiontheviabilityof religions that present this world as a stepping stone to some othermore important realm. Once this occurs, it is inevitable that religiousexperts delineate how to reach this other realm, and what must besacrificed in thisworld todo so.This always includes renouncing self-centeredness—anendlesstask.Once the spiritual impulse is channeled into any renunciate

worldview, it makes those who share a belief in that structure feelconnected. But this involves creating walls between “us” and “them,”which historically has been the easy way to become mechanicallybondedandfillthevacuumofmeaning.Thisisespeciallytemptingnowthat feelings of disconnection are rife. Uniting with each other andbringingmeaning to existence in away not based on a narrow groupidentityisoneofthevitalchallengesofthesetimes.Because the power of traditional religions comes from furnishing

unchallengeable answers about the unknown, they are inherentlyauthoritarian. Religions deflect examination by ordaining faith andbelieftobesacred,whilemaintainingthatnoordinarypersoncanknowenoughtotakeissuewiththebeliefstheyputforth.Afurtherhindranceto the intelligent examination of religious tradition is the social tabooagainstdoingso.Wedonotquestionpeople’srighttobelievewhattheywill. But the concept of religious tolerance is commonly extended toinclude not criticizing others’ beliefs. This is partially because beliefsthatarenon-rationalareconsiderednotsubjecttorationalexamination.Thismay be true about the contents of a belief, but is not true aboutwhateffectsoperatingoutofagivenbeliefhaveontheworld.Ifabeliefthatsendschildrentowarwiththepromiseofaspecialparadisecannotbechallengedasharmful,thatconceptoftoleranceisforusintolerable.

We define tolerance simply as not trying to impose one’s views onothers through coercion. We also consider any view of tolerance thatcuts off examination of anything the human mind can inquire intobasically authoritarian. Why should religion, whose power ismonumental, be exempt? We view ecological uncaringness,overpopulation,anduncared-forchildrenasmajorthreatstosurvival.Inourconceptionofmorality, structures thatpromote theseare immoral.This, of course, is debatable, as it should be. Should a religion thatmakesbirthcontrolasinnotalsobesubjecttoexaminationanddebate?Indeed,theveryactofmakingsacredcertainactions, institutions,orways of being is authoritarian, as it ensures that there can be noquestioning. The potential for great abuse is inherent in any ideologyclosedtoreason,feedback,orchangebasedonchangingcircumstances.Officiallyplacingsomethinginthecategoryofthesacredindicatesthatitneedsprotectionandshoringupbecauseofthefearitcannotstandonits own. Traditional concepts of the sacred set up an inherent dualismbetweenwhatissacredandwhatisn’t.Thehiddenfunctionofthesacredhasbeentogetpeopletosacrificetoit.Thishasbeenapartofthesamepolaritythatseparatedthespiritualfromtheworldly,whichisthebasisofallrenunciatemoralities.Whatmosturgentlyneedstobereexaminedin these fatefulanddangerous times is,aboveall, thatwhichhasbeenheldsacred.9It is fashionableamongsometosaythat truth, if itexists,cannotbeknownbecauseallstatementsaboutit,andviewsofit,arecouchedinalanguageandculturalcontextwhichareessentiallysubjective.Thisisanunderstandable reaction against authoritarian absolutes and universalsthatmasqueradeasobjective,whilehidingself-interest.Thedownsideofrelativism is that it itself is a disguised absolute that inhibits evenexploringwhether thereareor canbeperspectives thatgobeyond thesubjectivityofculture.Weholdthattherearehistoricallyembeddedpan-culturaltruthsthatcan reflect, however dimly, more than just the fabrications of vestedinterest,personalpreference,orevenculturalconstructions.Forus,onesuch truth is that the human species is now at risk because its newtechnologicalcapacitiesforleveragingpowerhavegonefarbeyondtheconstraintsoftheoldmoralsystems.Thetruthofthiscan,ofcourse,bechallenged.But,nevertheless, theperception that thepathhumanity is

onnowrisksextinctioniseithertrueornot.Wecannotenvisionamoreimportant topic for inquiry. People can only answer for themselveswhethertruthcanbefoundandwhatitis.Forus,humanity’shopeslieinthepossibilitythattruth,whateveritmaybeinthistimeofcrisis,willshinethrough.1“The Power of Abstraction: The Sacred Word and the Evolution of Morality” shows thehistoricalstagesoftherelationbetweenreligionandmorality.2See“FundamentalismandtheNeedforCertainty.”3See“TheMoralWars”and“Fundamentalism.”4“DoYouCreateYourOwnReality?” and “Oneness” in “ThePowerofAbstraction” containsuccinctdescriptionsofhowkarmaworks.5See“TheSeductionsofSurrender”and“StagesofCults.”6“TheFunctionofEnlightenment”in“Oneness,Enlightenment,andtheMysticalExperience”coversthisingreaterdepth.7“Buddhismand theAbuseofDetachment” inControldiscusses indepth the implicationsofrenunciation.8For more on the nature and limitations of renunciate religion, see “Dualism andRenunciation” in “Oneness” and “Symbol Systems and Power” in “The Power of Abstraction.”“On Channeling Disembodied Authorities” gives a detailed exposition on how bothauthoritarianismandrenunciationaredisguisedincertaincurrentbeliefs.9“The Power of Abstraction” examines the origin and development of the dualistic splitbetweenthespiritualandthemundane.

IGurusandTimesofUpheaval

n times of upheaval or impending disaster, when people feelimpotenttodealwiththevastproblemsanduncertaintiestheyface,

the tendency to look for a leader who takes the responsibility out oftheirhandsgreatlyincreases.Thesesaviorstendtobeeitherpoliticalorspiritual,sometimesboth.Such is the case today. What is at risk is not only the security of

individualsandcultures,butforthefirsttimesincethedawnofhumanhistory,ourspecies itself is facingthepossibilityofextinction.Theoldmorality and its institutions are breaking down, producing a spiritualvacuum, andwith it alienation,meaninglessness, andmoral confusion.Thoughsuchbreakdownisnecessaryduringperiodsoftransitionandispart of the impetus leading ideally to the creation of the new values,forms,andconsciousnessthatwillenableustosurvive—still,whilethebreakdown is occurring, there is increasing fear, conflict, misery,violence, and chaos.Oftenwhenpeople are afraid, they regress to oldvalues, behaviors, and emotional stances. Hence the politicalconservatism, religious fundamentalism, self-protectiveness, addictions,racism, hatred, cults, and “magical thinking” that can be observed allaroundus.Itisnowonderthenthatmanypeoplearelookingtospiritualleaders

toattempttosolvetheirproblems.Whenonefeelsimpotentthedesiretosurrender oneself to some higher power or authority is very greatindeed. And yet in the very process of doing so, one often acts outpatterns of dependency that are not at all conducive to meeting thechallengesof thesetimes. In fact, for thisparticularhistoricalmoment,the blind acceptance of authority—even if that authority has deeperwisdom—is not what is needed. Surrendering to authority sets updangerous and powerfully ingrained patterns that become part of thepsychicstructuresofboththosewhoacceptandthosewhobecometheauthority.

Mostpeopleareuncomfortablewithuncertainty;sowhenapreviouslyheldworldviewlosescredibility it isnatural toseekanotherstructuredviewpoint to view the world from. For those who feel the answersprovided by Western religions are bankrupt, Eastern religions areseductiveforseveralreasons,amongthem:Easternworldviewsaremoreabstractandphilosophicallysophisticated,andthusalsomorecongruentwithmodernscience;theyofferlivinghumanbeings(albeitonlyafewspecialones)asthevehiclesfortruthandwisdom;theyoffertechniquesthat can both alter consciousness and detach one from unwantedfeelings, givingmore emotional control; they promise direct access toreligiousormysticalexperiences.Practicessuchasyogaandmeditationhave been refined over millennia to bring insights into such innerpsychologicalstatesasfear,sorrow,andthenatureofpersonalidentity.1Aguru is a spiritual guide or teacherwho throughobedience tohisguruispresumedtohaveattainedspiritualrealization,afterwhichitisfurther presumed he can do the same for others if they likewise obeyhim. The tutorial method of religious instruction—the transmission ofinformation from guru (Hinduism) or spiritual master (Buddhism) todisciple—was an integral part of maintaining Eastern traditions.Religiousself-instructionwasconsidereddubiousatbestbecausepartofEastern tradition asserts the need for a realizedmaster to cut throughself-delusion.2In the East gurus have institutional status and are considered bybelieverstobeadirectandunblemishedexpressionofthedivine.Gurusare the only living individuals to whom complete obedience on allmattersisprescribedbytheroles.Asdisciplesareexpectedtosurrender,gurus must also know how to keep and exercise control. Part Oneillustratesthatthoughmystified,themethodsgurususetokeepcontrolarenodifferent than inanyotherarena—themanipulationof fearanddesire. In “spiritual” realms fear and desire can become as extreme astheyget.Whenalivingpersonbecomesthefocusofsuchemotions,thepossibilityofmanipulationiscorrespondinglyextreme.“PersonalMasks”also shows the techniques the ancient guru tradition has refined overmillennia for getting people to surrender control. The guru/disciplerelationship provides the most extreme, clear-cut and sophisticatedexampleofabondofdominanceandsubmissionnotbasedonphysicalcoercion. This still flourishing ancient tradition is a microcosm

encapsulatingthemostextremeexerciseofmentalauthoritarianism.ItsappealforsomeWesternersisatestamenttothedepthsandtenacityofauthoritarian conditioning. It displays in bas-relief the predilectionstowardauthoritarianismthatpermeatetheworldatlarge.In the rigid cultures of the East most people have little chance ofmovingoutoftheprescribedfamilialandsocialrolestheywerebornto,except through the spiritualpathwhichwas the sanctioned (andonly)way to “drop out.” In order to explore the inner life at all it wasnecessarytoremoveoneselffromtheordinaryties,binds,andactivitiesthatconsumedlife.Theconceptandroleofspiritualmasterbecametheexemplarofrenouncingtheimportanceofworldlylife.Theideaisthatonebecomesamasteroflife(anddeath)byremovinganyholdthatthevicissitudesoflifehadoverone’sinternalstates.Religiousteacherswhoorallypassedontheknowledgetheyacquiredfromeitherotherteachers,inner practices, or both offered an alternative way of life that had atleastthepotentialforgreaterdepthofunderstanding;foronlytheyhadthe time or inclination to delve into psychological and philosophicalrealms.Theappealofrenunciationisthattotheextentonecandoit,itdoes bring control over emotional states. This “dropping out” reallyamountedto“droppinginto”othersociallysanctionedrolesthatwereallencasedinthecategoryofspiritual—devotee,monk,wanderingsaddhu,orwildernesshermit.Of course, the master/devotee tradition has not only producedadvances in understanding but has also moved the hearts of manypeoplethroughdevotion,art,andliterature.Itofferedanoasisfromthegrindoflifeandanopportunitytoexploreone’srelationtothecosmos.Inexaminingandcritiquingit,wearenotconcernedwithitshistoricalappropriatenessorpastvalue.Rather,wewishtoshowwhythisoranyauthoritarian formisnownotonlycounter-productive,butdestructive.Understanding theappealofgurusand thebasicworldview theycomefrom can help show why authoritarian means of disseminatinginformation are no longer viable. Authoritarian mechanisms forinformation transmission have been a large part of what brought theworldtowhereitistoday.Thisbookaimsatdescribingwhythismodecan no longer answer the needs of a humanity that must mature tosurvive.The guru/disciple relationship contains an essential assumption that

makesitparticularlysusceptibletoabuse:namely,thatitispossibleforapersontobetotallyimmunefromthecorruptionsofpower.Whatthismustalsomeanisthatsuchapersonistotallyfreeofallself-interest,forself-interest necessarily entails the possibility of corruption. Ourperspective is that no one, no matter how exalted in awareness andunderstanding,cantotallyescapethepsychologicalfactthatself-interestisanelementinbeinghuman,andisalsoanecessaryelementinstayingalive.Regardlessofwhetherornotitispossibleforanyonetotranscendself-

interestand thecapacity tobecorruptedbypower,howcouldanyone(even—orespecially—thatperson)besurethisisso?Inpoliticalrealms,thecorruptionsinherentinpoweraretakenforgranted.Thepoweronepersoncanhaveoveranotherinso-calledspiritualrealmsisfargreaterthananyother, ifonebelievesthatpersonisthedoorwaytosalvation.This power is so absolute that it can lead to excesses that arecorrespondinglyextreme.Manyrecentscandalshaveshownthat thosewhohavewieldedsuch

power routinely abuse it. It is often assumed that this is becausesomehow thewrong personwas givenmore credibility than deserved.Wewishtodemonstratethatthecorruptionofso-calledspiritualpowerdoesnotsimplyoccurbecausethewrongpersonisinpower.Rather,thisoccurswhenever a role or structure bestows power through images ofinfallibilityormoral superiority.The fault thendoesnot lie inagivenleader’sshortcomings,butratherinthestructureitself,throughdefiningonepersonasmorepureandspiritual,andthussuperiortoothers.If people believe a leader can save them, they are capable of any

actionordered,includingkillingothersandeventhemselves.Technologyhas expanded the potential abuse of power manyfold. Now throughmedia images, leaders of all sorts can charismatically control farmorepeople than ever before,without having anypersonal connectionwiththem. A fundamentalist religious authority (now deceased) who tookover an Islamic society exemplifies the very real danger of combiningthe extraordinary power of religion with political power. By literallygivingthemplastickeystothegatesofheaven,thisleaderwasabletogetyoungboystodiegladlyaswarriorsfortheirsalvation.If humanity is to meet the extraordinary challenges it now faces, a

context is needed that allows people to become self-corrective,

responsible adults. Particularly in these times of upheaval, our deeplyconditioned predilection to look to authorities to solve our problemsmustbe seen forwhat it is—apartofhumanhistory that isno longerviable. Throughout the ages, this need for authorities has createdhierarchies that have allowed power and privilege to justify andmaintain themselves,without needing recourse to anything other thanthemaskedvestedinterestsoftraditionitself.Traditionhasalwaysbeenusedtoreassurepeople’s fearofchaosandofeachother; it isalso thecohesiveforcebehindpowerandprivilege.Butnowthesetraditionsandinstitutionsthatoncekeptchaosatbayareattherootofdisorder,sincetheyarenolongerabletomeettheneedsofaradicallychangingworld.In times of upheaval the appeal of gurus3 and authorities, whether“spiritual” or secular, is really reaching for an anchor of stability. Thefollowingchaptersaimtoshowhowandwhyanyperson, ideology,orstructurethatintheshortorlongrununderminesaperson’sself-trustispartoftheproblem,notthesolution.1“East and West: Looking Within and Looking Without” in Control discusses what EasternperspectivesoffertheWest.2See “The Function of Enlightenment” in “Oneness, Enlightenment, and the MysticalExperience.”3AlthoughtheconceptofgurucomesfromatraditionalEasternframework,thedynamicsofpower in thatpositionare largely applicable to anygroupwith anunchallengeable leader. Sothroughoutthisbook,theword“guru”isalsousedtorefertoleaders(nomatterwhattheyarecalled)whoseunchallengeabilityisnotprimarilybasedonphysicalcoercion.

WTheSeductionsofSurrender

hen a child is born, a very powerful constellation of factorsoccurs. Boundaries between self and others are as yet

relativelyindistinctandunformed;consequentlythereisagreatdealofuncontrollableemotion.This includesa senseofbeingat thecenterofthe universe, which can feel very powerful. The baby cries and theuniversearound itmoves; it is thecenterof focusandattention.Beingtotally cared for, with no expectations from others, with no future toworryaboutorpast to regret, ispartof auniquemoment that cannotlast.Most people have had some time in this place—aday, aweek, amonth,orevenlonger.Itisaplaceofinnocencethatcontainsasenseofbasicwell-being,of fundamental security, andalsoofpower.Thatonehas yet to face the specter of mortality is a significant factor in suchinnocence.Thisexperience—whichlivesdeepinmemory,notinanintellectualor

symbolicway,butratherviscerally—cangiverisetoanebuloussenseoflonging for its return. This is especially so if one’s later life isunfulfilling.Oftenalargecomponentofspiritualseekingisthedesireforaplaceofnoconflict,whereabenign,all-powerfulintelligenceistakingcare of things, and not incidentally, where one feels immortal again.Suchyearningsareactuallythedeepwanttoreturntothatearlyplace.This means that what many people are seeking in the name ofspiritualityisnotreallytogrowandtofurtherdevelopasenseoftheirrelationship with the scheme of things—a journey into the unknown.Whatisactuallybeingsoughtisareturntotheknown.1Surrenderingtoanauthoritywhoseimageofspiritualitycaterstosuch

yearnings is perhaps the easiest way to simulate that bygone state ofinnocence.Sincesurrenderisbuiltintothestructureoftheguru/disciplerelationship, itrepresentstheepitomeofsubmissiontoalivingperson.Surrender is not only the key to understanding this and otherauthoritarian modes, but the very act of surrendering has predictablepsychological consequences that can explainwhy gurus have attractedpeople frommany backgrounds. The guru/disciple framework offers a

uniquelytransparentwindowintothenatureandappealofauthoritarianstructuresingeneral.Unlike the West where only a transcendent God is consideredinfallible, much of Eastern religion postulates that people, perhapsanyone, can attain godhood through lifetimes of proper action (goodkarma).ThustheEast linksspiritualitywitheitherseekingorattainingsuchastate,whichisoftencalledenlightenment,i.e.,beingacosmicorspiritual “knower.”Thiscreates twobasic stances—seekerandknower.Should one delve into the mysteries of life and glean insights, it isnaturaltowishtosharethem.Buttakingontheroleofknowerfitsintothe predilection of seekers to want an authority they can trust. Beingtreatedasaknowerisoneofthemostseductiveanddifficultplacestobe.One is treated very specially—forwhat ismore special than beingconsideredavesselofthetruth?Thisspecialtreatmenthingesonfittingpeople’s preconceptions of a spiritual knower, which means it is notpropitious to acknowledge, even to oneself, that onemay at times beuncertainorwrong.Inthespiritualworld,thosewhorisetothetopandarethoughtofasknowers tend tobeexceptionalpeople,as is thecase inanyareawithmuchpotentialpower,wealth,andinfluence.Theneedtoappearrightwhen presenting oneself as a spiritual knower is greater than in anyother arena because knowing is what makes one essentially differentfrom seekers.Admittingany fallibilitynotonly removesone from thatexalted place, but makes it difficult to compete with other presumedknowerswhodo claim infallibility.Part ofbeingaknower is knowingthat seekers are searching for certainty, and that if you don’t offer itsomeoneelsewill.The stance“Iknowa lot,but I canmakemistakes”cannotcompetewith“Iknoweverythingthatcountsandnevererraboutwhat’s important.” So thosewhoplay theknower roleareundergreatpressuretoputforthanimageofcertainty.The concept of enlightenment contributes to gurus’ need to beinfallible. Enlightenment is conceived of as a static and absolute statewhichwhenreachedisall-encompassing,leavingnowheretogo.Tiedtothisoddimageoffinalitywithinanevolvingcosmosisthepresumptionthat amodernmanifestation of an enlightened beingwould be sayingpretty much the same things as were said thousands of years ago. Ifenlightenment could be influenced by the historical context, or could

itself evolve, then one could never be sure that anyone had the lastword. The view that puts enlightenment beyond history, change, andfallibilityalsoreinforcesthebeliefthatneitherthepsychologicalfactsofhuman existence (self-interest, fear, and desire, for example) nor thenormalrulesofbehaviorapplytoenlightenedknowers.2In the traditional guru/disciple structure, disciples are expected tosurrender theirwill to the guru.This is presented as necessary for theguru to lead the disciple to realizations that can only be achieved bygiving up the mundane attachments previously accumulated. This, ofcourse, includesmaterialattachments;butmore importantly, surrenderis presented as the means of letting go of the more deep-seatedpsychological attachments, which include the very structure ofpersonalityandidentity(whatiscalledego).Assurrendertoaguruisanintegralpartofbeingadisciple,thisoffersa paradigm for examining the needs surrender fills, the emotions itgenerates, andwhy it appears to offer quick access to change. In ourview, deciphering the mechanisms of surrender can only be done byviewingitintandemwithcontrol.

ControlandSurrender

Control,takingcharge(orattemptingto),andsurrender,lettinggo,aretwo basic relational stances. Surrender is often presented as theantithesisof control, asgiving itup.Surrenderdoesnotdoawaywithcontrol;rather,itshiftscontrolsomewhereelse.Thisisbecausecontrolandsurrenderareembeddedineachotherandalwayshavesomekindofrelation.Likedominanceandsubmission,controlandsurrendercannotexistinisolationwithouttheother.Surrenderingcontrolusuallymeansshiftingfrominternalcontroltobeingcontrolledexternally,whetherbya person or ideology. But this shift is not clear-cut, for one mustinternalizetheideologytofollowit,andthewillingnesstoobeyanotherisalsointernal.Whatoneletsgoofisonlyalevelofself-control.Thereisstillanaspect,oftenhidden,ofbeingincontrolofsurrendering.As socialized animals, even internal controls, like values and

conscience,havebeenat leastpartiallyimplantedbyanexternalsocialcontext.So, fromourperspective,somethingisalwaysincontrol,oratleast more in control than something else. This is why we think it amistake to consider control and surrender autonomous categories.Surrendering feels different than control because it involves openingone’sboundaries.Anironyisthatthemoretotalsurrenderappears,themoreabsolutethecontextofexternalcontrolitoccursin.3Hindu lore contains this adage, “No shakti without bhakti.” Shakti

refers to a transcendent energy, while bhakti means devotion orsurrender. What may be called transcendent experiences do occur inlove, art, religion, and even in something as seemingly mundane assports—wheneveroneletsgoofcontrol,thatis,surrenderstosomethingoutsideoneself.Inteamsportsonerelinquishesindividualcontroltobecontrolledbythegroup.Anyonewhohasbeeninvolvedinteamsportsmay have experienced moments of feeling like part of a well-oiledmachine, with all the players magically acting as one. It’s as if thetotalitywere directing all its parts—there are nomistakes. These highmomentsinsportshaveadifferentqualityofenergy.Surrenderisoneofthemostpowerfulforcesandemotionalstatesthat

a human being can touch into. Passion literally means abandonment,lettinggo;thussurrenderisawaytopassion.Itispossibletosurrenderto many aspects of life: a person, an ideal, one’s art, a religion, apoliticalsystem,therevolution,andeventhelivingmoment.Surrenderissopotentpreciselybecauseitshiftscontroltoanarenathatisfree,ormore free, from one’s inner dramas and the conflicts involved inpersonaldecisions.IfIsurrendermyhearttoyou,thenbeingwithyoubecomes central in my life. If I give my life to music, spiritualrealization,whatever, then thatdictatesmymovement. Itbecomes thefocus of my life, which eliminates many choices by making all elsesecondary.Surrenderisabasicpartof life,asiscontrol.Whatisbeingexamined and taken issuewith is surrender as a part of authoritariancontrol.In the East a guru is more than a teacher. He is a doorway thatsupposedlyallowsone toenter intoamoreprofoundrelationshipwiththe spiritual. A necessary step becomes acknowledging the guru’sspecialness and mastery over that which one wishes to attain. Themessageisthattobeareallyseriousstudent,spiritualrealizationmustbetheprimaryconcern.Thereforeone’srelationshipwiththegurumust,intime,becomeone’sprimeemotionalbond,withallothersviewedassecondary.Infact,typicallyotherrelationshipsarepejorativelyreferredtoas“attachments.”Oncetheprimarybondwiththeguruisestablished,apowerfulconfigurationoffactorscomesintoplay.The ostensible reason for fostering surrender is it detaches followersfrom certain deep conditionings presumed to be obstacles on thespiritual path. But it does not detach them from one of the mostinsidiousandpowerfulconditioningsofall—thepredilectiontolookforanauthoritythatonecantrustmorethanoneself.Onthecontrary,gurushappilyleaveintactthatbasicconditioning.Tobesomeone’sauthorityisto be firmly implanted at the very center of their being. So althoughmostguruspreachdetachment,disciplesbecomeattachedtohavingtheguruastheircenter,whereasthegurubecomesattachedtothepowerofbeingothers’ center. These reciprocal attachments are ignoredbecauseattachment to the guru is considered spiritual; and the guru, who ispresumed enlightened, is by definition supposed to be beyondattachments.

Scandals,Saints,andSelf-Centeredness

In recentyears,myriad scandalswithindifferent spiritual communitieshave come to light. The scandals expose that the leader, or the groupwiththeleader’sknowledge,wasinvolvedinbehaviorscontrarytotheespousedmessageandvalues.Inshort,eachinstanceinvolvedanabuseofpower.Wewillshowwhyfromourperspectivetheseabuseswerenotmerely isolated aberrations; rather the structure of surrendering to anauthority not only increases the likelihood of corruption, but makescorruptionnigh inevitable.Notsurprisingly, theabuseswerevariationsofthefourroutinecorruptionsofpower:

1. Sexual abuse. Someof themore extremeabuses include childmolestation, rape, andpromulgatingprostitutiontosupporttheleaderandgroup.Thenthereisthedeceitthatisseeminglyinnocuoustosomepeople,involvingapretenseofcelibacyormonogamywhilehavingclandestinesexualactivity.4

2.Materialabuse.Thisinvolvesthedifferentwaystheconcernsforwealthandluxuriousliving contradict the stated values of austerity or detachment—secret bank accounts,cultivatingthewealthy,flamboyantlifestyles,expensivecarsandplanes,etc.Commonlytheleaderandtheinnercircleleadextravagantlivesofopulence,whiletheoutercirclelaborshardformeagermaterialreward.3.Theabuseofpower.Thisincludesusingandabusingothersforone’sownenhancementandtopreservepower.Behindimagesofpeace,altruism,love,non-violence,andsavingtheworld,manygroupsused threats andviolence tomaintain obedience andprotectthemselvesagainstwhat theyperceivedasdanger to thegroup.One leadereven sent“hit” men to physically punish errant disciples. There have been incidents of deaththreats and attacks aimed at anyone who was thought to undermine the group; thisincludedformerfollowers,thoseconsideringleaving,andthosewhodirectlychallengethe beliefs. Abuses of power are just another indication of the lie within the guru’sidentity,whichissupposedlybeyondself-interest.4.Self-abuse.Theconsciousmessagesareclear:thebodyisthetempleofspiritandmustbe so treated; a healthy body is the result of a healthymind and spirit; tranquillity,compassion, and emotional control are signs of arrival. Yetmany leaders display theopposite: drunkenness, obesity, vindictiveness, rages, and physical ailments that inotherswouldbecalledpsychosomatic,suchasallergies,ulcers,orhighbloodpressure.Infact,acloseexaminationofthehistory,pastandpresent,ofmanyreligiousleadersshowsahighincidenceofwhatmightbetermedself-destructiveindicators.

Whenabusesarepubliclyexposedtheleadereitherdeniesorjustifiesthe behaviors by saying that “enemies of the truth” or “the forces of

evil”aretryingtosubverthistruemessage.Coremembersofthegrouphaveahugevestedinterestinbelievinghim,astheiridentityiswrappedup inbelieving inhis righteousness.Thosewhobegin todoubthimatfirstbecomeconfusedanddepressed,andlaterfeelbetrayedandangry.Thewayspeopledenyand justifyaresimilar:Sincesupposedlynoonewhoisnotenlightenedcantrulyunderstandthemotivesofonewhois,any criticism can be discounted as a limited perspective. Also anybehavioronthepartoftheguru,nomatterhowbase,canbeimputedtobesomesecretteachingormessagethatneedsdeciphering.By holding gurus as perfect and thus beyond ordinary explanations,theirpresumedspecialnesscanbeusedtojustifyanything.Somedeeper,occultreasoncanalwaysbeascribedtoanythingagurudoes:Theguruis said to take on the karma of others, and that is why his body haswhateverproblemsithas.Theguruisobeseorunhealthybecauseheistookindto turndownofferings;besides,hegivessomuchthata littleexcessisunderstandable.Hepunishesthosewhodisobeyhimnotoutofangerbutoutofnecessity,asagoodfatherwould.Heusessextoteachaboutenergyanddetachment.Helivesanopulentlifetobreakpeople’ssimplisticpreconceptionsofwhatego-lossshouldlooklike;italsoshowshowdetachedandunconcernedheisaboutwhatothersthink.Forafterall, “Once enlightened, one can do anything.” Believing this dictummakesanyactionjustifiable.People justify and rationalize in gurus what in others would beconsideredunacceptablebecausetheyhaveahugeemotionalinvestmentinbelievingtheirguruisbothpureandright.Why?Whydopeopleneedimages of perfection and omniscience? This goes back to the wholeguru/disciple relationship being predicated on surrender. Surrender ofgreatmagnituderequirescorrespondinglygreat imagesofperfection. Itwouldbedifficulttosurrendertoonewhosemotiveswerenotthoughttobepure,whichhascometomeanuntaintedbyself-centeredness.Howcanonesurrendertoapersonwhomightputhisself-interestfirst?Alsoitisdifficulttosurrendertosomeonewhocanmakemistakes,especiallymistakesthatcouldhavesignificantimpactonone’slife.Consequently,the guru cannever bewrong,makemistakes, be self-centered, or loseemotionalcontrol.Hedoesn’tgetangry,he“uses”angertoteach.Thereisanotherequallyimportant,crucialtounderstandreasonwhypeople want so much to believe that someone, somewhere, does not

have the common foibles of humanity—that it is possible for a fewspecialpeopletobeaboveitall.Insteadofenumeratingthemanywayshumanbeingsheapuncaringnessoneachother,let’scategorizethemasallcontainingaspectsofself-centeredness.Mostmoraljudgmentspertainto the wrongness of particular expressions of self-centeredness.Furthermore,sinceunmitigatedself-centerednessliesunderneathactsofcallousviolence, it itself isoftensimplisticallymadetheculprit. Inthislineof thinking, tobeabetterhumanbeing is tobe less self-centered;andtobethebestpossiblepersonisnottobeself-centeredatall.Thewayspiritualgrowthistraditionallypresentedinvolvesgettingridof the aspects of oneself that are disliked or disapproved of. Herebecoming a better person means tempering such self-centeredexpressionsasjealousy,competitiveness,pettiness,etc.Sofortheretobesomeonewhoisfreeofsuchthingsactsasamotivatorforbetteringandcontrolling oneself. That’swhymany people need to believe in saints.(The traditionalmeaningof saint is someonewhohas transcended theordinary manifestations of self-centeredness.) Saints serve as idealexamples,givinghopethatothers,too,canatleastbecomebetter,ifnotperfect.5It is difficult for an intelligent, caring person to look clearly at self-centeredness without experiencing some discomfort. Obviously all thejudgedinequitiesintheworldareaproductofit,andthewayswehurteach other contain it. All themajor problems on the planet (ecology,politics, starvation, violence, racism, chauvinism, and crime) likewisedisplay it. Renunciate religions control people through the guilt theyinstill around self-centeredness; and communist regimes, at leasttheoretically, tried to legislate and coerce it away, believing it tobe aproduct of wrong social conditioning. No wonder then that many onspiritual paths are searching for a way out of the problems anddiscomfort that self-centeredness brings. In theEast, ego-loss is lookeduponas thenecessarydoorway to adifferent and sublime relationshipwiththespiritual.Thisinvolvesthegoalofeliminatingself-centerednessthrougheliminating the self.Detaching fromthecravingsofego is theoriginofthespiritualidealofdetachment.Christianity demands the acknowledgment that humans are sinners(read self-centered), and that salvationcomes throughacceptingChristandthemoralityhe ispurportedtohaveput forth.Christ isviewedas

the ultimate in selflessness, for he sacrificed himself to save humanityand pay for its sins. A coremessage of theNew Testament is that bysurrendering to Christ and his dictates, one can curb self-centerednessenoughtosaveone’ssoul.Thatinterestinone’sownsalvationistotallyself-centeredisaconundrumrarelyexplored.SurrendertoChristandtoa guru have similar dynamics, as they both bring about feelings ofpassion,asenseofpurpose,andtheimmediatereductionofconflictandtension.It isdifficult fordisciplestoavoidthetrapofusingtheirnew-found good feelings and relatively peaceful emotional state asverification that theguruandhisworldviewareessentially correct.Asmanydo,theyuse“feelingbetter”astheirlitmustestfortruth.Thepower of Eastern religions and the gurus that represent them is

that theyoffera livingChrist-like figure toworship,andalsoholdoutthe promise that anyone who does the proper practices couldconceivably reach that high state, too. The path most oftenrecommended and presented as the easiest,most direct route is calledbhaktiordevotion,whichinvolvesworshippingandsurrenderingtotheguruasamanifestationofGod.Interestingly,themoreonesurrenderstoanother,thelessself-centeredoneactuallyfeels,becauseoneappearstobemakingthatsomeoneorsomethingmoreimportantthanoneself.Thisiswhy surrendering to a guru is oftenpresented as the easiestwayofbecomingmoreselfless.Alongwithdevotion,workinghardfortheguruandhiscause (sometimesreferred toas“karmayoga”)alsomakesonefeellessself-centered.

RecognizingAuthoritarianControl

Surrendering to a guru brings instant intimacywith allwho share thesamevalues.Inaworldwheretraditionalvaluesarecrumbling,bringingbrittle, hedonisticways of relating,many feel alone and disconnected.Acceptancebyand identificationwith thegroup inducea looseningofpersonalboundaries.Thisopeningconsequentlyincreasestheemotionalcontent of one’s life, bringing purpose, meaning, and hope. It is nowonder that thosewho join such groups rave about howmuch betterthey feel than previously. But this quick, one-dimensional bonding isbasedsolelyuponasharedideology.Nomatterhowintenseandsecureitfeels,shouldoneleavethefold,itevaporatesasquicklyasitformed.Surrender is the glue that binds guru and disciple. Being a disciple

offers the closest approximation (outside ofmental institutions) to thespecial configuration of infancy. Surrender is a route that enablesdisciples to experience again, at least partially, the conflict-freeinnocence that is the source of their atavistic longings. Among these,perhapsmost important is thefeelingofonceagainbeingtotallycaredfor.Surrenderingtoanyauthoritybringsthisabouttosomeextent,butwith a guru it reaches vast dimensions. The guru reinforces this byletting it beknown that allwho followhimare andwill be especiallyprotected.Forthefollower,thisfeelslikebeingprotectedbyGod.This dependent state satisfies other longings that stem from infancy.

Onceagain,oneexperiencesbeingatthecenteroftheuniverse—ifnotdirectly(theguruoccupiesthatspace),atleastclosertothecenterthanonecouldhavethoughtpossible.Thegurualsoputsouttheimageofthetotallyacceptingparent—theparentoneneverhadbutalwayswanted.So disciples believe they are loved unconditionally, even though thislove is conditional on continued surrender. Disciples in the throes ofsurrenderfeeltheyhavegivenuptheirpast,anddonot,consciouslyatleast, fear the future. In addition, they feel more powerful throughbelieving that theguruandthegrouparedestined togreatly influencethe world. Feeling totally cared for and accepted, at the universe’scenter,powerful,andseeminglyunafraidof the futureareallachieved

atthepriceofgivingone’spowertoanother,thusremainingessentiallyachild.Surrendering to an authority who dictates what’s right is a quick,mechanicalroutetofeelingmorevirtuous.Itisafasttrackfortakingonamoral system and to some extent following it. Butmore, that act ofsurrenderitselfcanfeellikegivinguporatleastdiminishingone’sego,which ispresentedasa signof spiritualprogress.All renunciatemoralsystemshaveasprimevirtuesselflessnessandobediencetosomehigherauthority. If confused or in conflict, conforming to programming canmakeonefeelimmediatelybetter.Obedienceitselfcanfeelselfless.Theconditioninghererunsdeep.Childrenarepraisedforobedience,whichfundamentallymeansdoingwhattheparentwantsinsteadofwhattheywant.Whendisobedient,achildisoftencalledselfish,whichisneveracompliment.Surrenderingtoanauthorityandthenbeingrewardedforitispartofbeingachild.Itmaybetruethatthereisnowayoutofthis.Yetthereisaworldofdifferencebetweenparentingaimedatholdingonto authority, and parenting that leads children to self-trust. We arecertain that children raised to trust themselves would be far lesssusceptible to authoritarian control. No matter how much better oneinitially feels, anything that undermines self-trust in the long run isdetrimentaltobecominganadult.6Disciplesusuallybecomemoreattachedtothepsychologicalstatethatsurrenderbringsthantotheguru,whomtheyneverreallygettoknowas a person. Repudiation of the guru (or even doubt and questioning)meansa return toearlierconflict, confusion,andmeaninglessness.Thedeeper the surrender, and themore energy and commitment they putinto the guru, the greater their emotional investment is. Discipleswillthusputupwithagreatdealofcontradictoryandaberrantbehaviorontheguru’spart,fordoubtinghimliterallymeanshavingtheirworldfallapart.This is why many who are involved in authoritarian surrenderadamantlydenytheyare.Thosewhoseethedissemblinginothergurusorleaderscanfindcountlesswaystobelievethattheirguruisdifferent.It is not at all unusual to be in an authoritarian relationship and notknow it. In fact, knowing it can interfere with surrender. Any of thefollowingarestrongindicationsofbelongingtoanauthoritariangroup:

1. No deviation from the party line is allowed. Anyone who has thoughts or feelingscontrarytotheacceptedperspectiveismadetofeelwrongorbadforhavingthem.2.Whatevertheauthoritydoesisregardedasperfectorright.Thusbehaviorsthatwouldbequestionedinothersaremadetoseemdifferentandproper.3.Onetruststhattheleaderorothersinthegroupknowwhat’sbest.4.Itisdifficulttocommunicatewithanyonenotinthegroup.5.One findsoneselfdefendingactionsof the leader (orothermembers)withouthavingfirsthandknowledgeofwhatoccurred.6.Attimesoneisconfusedandfearfulwithoutknowingwhy.This isasignthatdoubtsarebeingrepressed.

The age-old inquiry that asks “Who am I?” looks inside for self-discovery.Theprocess of diggingdeeper intooneself reveals there areself-images constructed out of the past that are part of one’s identity.The true meaning of spiritual surrender involves letting go of self-defining images that limit who one is and can be. Within this innerinquiry one also comes to realize that one is part of a larger context.Surrendering to thosewhopresent themselvesasabetterormore realrepresentative of that larger context perverts the true beauty andmeaningof surrender.On the contrary, surrendering to another as thegateway to salvation keeps people dependent, childish, and livingsecond-handedly.Surrenderasanadultencompassesrealizingthatallofus are an interwoven part of a larger process that both creates and iscreatedbyitscomponents.Thisinvolvesbeingablebothtocontrollifeandtosurrendertowhatlifeoffers.Itdoesnotinvolvegivingupone’spoweroridentity.The only way any living system works well is to have informationflowingfreelybetweenitspartsanditsenvironment.Thisisparticularlyessentialwithhumanbeings,inordertocounteracttheinbuiltnatureofsubjectivity and the biasing filters of self-interest. The guru/disciplerelationship, which is inherently authoritarian, cuts off the necessaryflow of information for both, creating a feedback-proof system. If anydegreeofobjectivitycaneverbeobtained,itisonlythroughopenmindsthatchangewithchanginginformation.Thethoughts in thisbookcouldalwaysbewrittenoffasunspiritual,egotistical,andcomingfromalowerplaneofunderstanding.Ultimatelythereisnowaytoprovewhoseperspectiveismoreaccurate.Whatcanbe shown, however, is whether the process involved in establishing a

given worldview is authoritarian, and what the implications of thisprocess are. The tragedy that all authoritarian structures breed,particularlyso-calledspiritualones,comesfromgivingabsoluteprioritytoanother’sviewpoint.This involvesmistakenlyidentifyingasspiritualthe (usually temporary) conflict-free emotions and passions that comefrom surrendering to an authority. The tragedy is compounded in ourtimesbecauseoursurvivalasaspeciesdependsuponadultscomingtothe fore who can break the shackles of old authority and tradition,creatingnew formsof relating toeachotherand to theplanetwe liveon. In order to do this, we must use all we have: our bodies, ouremotions,ourminds,andalltypesofinformationfromtheworldaroundus.Blindsurrendertoauthorityisanemotionalindulgenceandillusorysecuritythespeciescannolongerafford.1“Love Addiction” in “Love and Control: The Conditions Underlying Unconditional Love”

shows how emotional surrender, whether in love or religion, can become a psychologicaladdiction.2See “The Function of Enlightenment” in “Oneness, Enlightenment, and the Mystical

Experience.”3See“InducingSurrender”in“GuruPloys.”Formoreoncontrol,see“WhoIsinControl?The

AuthoritarianRootsofAddiction.”4See“GurusandSexualManipulation”onwhysexualmisconductisnotonlyadeepbetrayal

oftrust,butalsoacorelieabouttheguru’sveryidentityandteachings.5“Who Is in Control?” describes the consequences of internalizing an unlivable morality.

“What is Selfless Service Serving?” (inControl) gives an in-depth explanation of whymakingselflessnesstheall-importantvirtuenotonlydoesnotwork,butcontainstheseedsofcorruption.6“TheAmbiguityofParentalAuthority”inControlgoesintothisindepth.

SGuruPloys

urrender lies at the core of the traditional guru/disciplerelationshipand is invaryingdegreesapartofanyauthoritarian

structure. Ideally disciples surrender totally to thewill of the guru, asChristiansaresupposedtosurrendertothewillofGod.Gurusarethusable towieldextremeauthoritarianpowerover theirdisciples.Aguru,tobeaguru,mustknowhowtomovepeopleintoapsychologicalstateofsurrenderandkeepthemthere.Gurusknowthatthosewhoshowanyinterestinthemrarelydosooutofmerecuriosity,butwantsomethingthey are lacking. What many people crave these days is a sense ofconnectionorunionwithsomethingtheyconsidersufficientlyprofoundtogivetheirlivesmeaning.Theveryactofsurrenderinitiallybringsthisabout.

InducingSurrender

Psychologicalauthoritarianismisbasedonmanipulatingdesireandfear.Hence the motivational techniques utilized to induce and perpetuatesurrender are the usual promises of rewards (worldly or otherworldly)and threats of punishments. Getting people to surrender leans moreheavilyontherewardside,whilekeepingthemtheredependsmoreonemphasizing the dire results of leaving the guru. The focus of thischapteristorevealthewayssurrendercanbemechanicallyinduced.Weare not intimating that all gurus are consciously aware of theirmanipulations. Some, especially those immersed in tradition, could bemerelyrepeatingwhattheyweretaughtandwhatwasdonewiththemby theirownguru.Thosewhoatone timehadaguruareparticularlyinclined tobelieve surrender is an essential component in transmittingtheiresotericknowledge.Traditionalgurusteachwhattheyweretaught.Mostgurus’trainingin

dealing with disciples is through example—watching their own guru.Theylearntorecognize,reinforce,andrewardsurrender,andtonegatenon-surrender. Aside from the more tangible rewards, they reinforcedevotion with attention and approval, and punish its lack bywithdrawingthem.Thoughsomegurussaythatdoubtsarehealthy,theysubtly punish them.Doubt is not theway to get into the inner circle.Believing surrender is essential for transmitting their teachings, somegurus could be aware they are manipulating people to surrender, butthinktheyaredoingso“fortheirowngood.”(Ifthiswereinfacttrue,itwould mean that deep truths are only accessible via an authoritarianmode.) This can not only justify manipulation, but also justifydissembling in order to help eliminate people’s doubts—all this beingdoneinthenameoffosteringspiritualgrowth.Intheinitialseductionphase,thepotentialdisciplebecomesthefocus

of the guru’s or group’s attention and ismade to feel very important.Then enticements are dangled in the formof testimonials, promises ofextraordinaryexperiences,andoffersofunqualifiedfriendshipandcare—headystuff.Aconvincingpersuasionisthatdevoteesnotonlyclaimto

feelsomuchbetternowthanbefore,buttothosewhohaveknownthempreviously,theydoinfactappearhappier.Onceaninitialcommitmenthasbeenmade,techniquesgearedatdisorientationcomeintoplay.Thisis done through undermining both self-trust and one’s previousattachments and support systems. Critical thought and relying uponprevious experience are made to appear the source of one’s past orcurrent problems.1 One spiritual leader claims to be the real parent,whilelabelingthebiologicalparentsthe“devilparents.”Themostenticingmessagetoinducesurrenderisthatonlyinthiswaycan one achieve true spiritual advancement. Two common argumentsused to deal with resistance contain promises of “knowing God” or“fulfillingkarmicdestiny.”Thefirstmakesonefeel inadequatebecauseof the inability to commit; the second emphasizes the guru’s superiorpositionanddisarmsfearsofmakingamistake:

1. “What is important is not the guru orwhether you becomemy disciple.Whatmostlimitsyouisyourgreatdifficultywithcommitmenttoanything.Somedayyoumustfacewhetheryouwill evermovebeyondyour endless indecisionandhave the courage togiveyourselftotallytosomething.DoyouthinkthatknowingGodcancomefromhalf-measures?”2.“Howcananyonewhoishalf-asleepknowwhoisawakeandwhoisnot?Howcanadiscipleknowwhat is intheheartof theguru?Ifyourheart isopentotheguru,youfulfillyourkarmicdestiny.Ifthegurubetrayshisdisciples’trust,thatishisbadkarma,nottheirs.Butwhatmanofwisdomwouldsowtheseedsofhisowndemise?”

Atsomepointdisciplinesortechniquesaregiventhathaveaspecifiedgoalandpredictedendresult.Forexample,peoplearetoldthatthroughmeditatinginaspecifiedwaytheywilleventuallyexperiencebluelightsor see the guru’s face, or some other internal occurrence. What thepromiseismatterslittlebecausethemindcaneventuallyconstructanyimage it focuses upon. One is also told that regular practice willeventually bring higher states of consciousness and possibly evenenlightenment,thoughthiscantakeyearsorlifetimes.2Onceadisciplehashadthepredictedexperience,theguruandgroupreinforcebeliefinitsimportance.Thefirstmini-experience(sayofbluelights) ispresentedasasignificantsteponthespiritualpath.Havingamini-experiencegiveshopethatgranderoneswilleventuallyoccur.Theexperiences derived from the practices are thenused as verification ofboth the guru’s power and the truth of his worldview. But all this

actually proves is that these experiences can bemechanically inducedthroughmental techniques, and thus are predictable. People are oftenfurther conditioned to look at the guru as the fount or source of theirnewfound positive feelings. They are taught to use the guru’s picturebeforemeditationtotriggermemoriesofemotionalstatesthatoccurredinthepresenceoftheguru.Theprocessofsurrenderingtoagurucanbegradual,likepeelinganonion, as people surrender more and more deeply over time. Often,however,apowerfuland relativelyquickconversionexperienceoccurswherein people drop all resistance, totally accepting the guru’steachings.Quick,sometimesunexpectedconversionscanhappenwithinany belief system, although they generally occur in religiousframeworks. This “seeing the light” can make one feel free of oldbaggage, thus new and even reborn. A conversion experience oftenbringstremendousreleaseandintenseemotion,asitinvolveslettinggoofone’soldidentityandtakingonanewone.Thepastisautomaticallyreinterpreted in the lightofwhatevervaluesystemandworldviewonehas converted to. People use these powerful feelings to validate theirnew beliefs. These beliefs are the source of the euphoria, but notnecessarily because they are true.Anynewworldviewwill do, as it istheconversionexperienceitself,notthevalidityofspecificbeliefs,thatistherealsourceoftheemotions.Thegurupromises,eitherdirectlyorindirectly,thatsurrenderingtohimwillbringsomethingwonderful,andheisfoundtoberight.Peoplethenconcludethegurumustindeedbeanenlightenedmaster.Manycultsandevangelicalfundamentalistreligionsnotonlypromoteconversion experiences but rely on them formuch of their credibility.SomeNewAgegroupspromoteconversionsintheir“trainings,”claimingtobenon-authoritarianbecausepeoplesupposedlypersonallyexperiencethe truth of their belief systems.However, something else is going onhere. The very fact that somany different types of groups, with suchradicallydifferentbeliefsystems,candothisshowsthatsurrenderingtoany leaderor ideologycanbringpowerful feelingsandan instantnewidentity. The feeling of renewal often includes believing that one haswipedone’smoralslateclean.Thepowerofconversionexperiencesliesin the psychological shift from confusion to certainty. The newbeliefsbecomeessentialtoholdanddefendlestallthegoodfeelingsthatcome

fromcertaintyvanish.The price paid for these good feelings is succumbing to one of the

oldestformsofauthoritarianmindcontrol.Itspowerissuchthatitisnotunusualforpeopletodefendthesanctityoftheauthoritywiththeirlivesif necessary. Being reborn in this way eventually closes people toeverythingthatdoesnotconformtotheirnew,rigidlyheldworldview.Althoughone’sindividualboundariesareopentothegroup,thegroup’sboundariesareclosedtooutsiders.Ultimatelyoneonlyacceptsandfeelscomfortable with those either within the system or open toproselytization.

MaintainingDominance

Surrender to authority is an integral part of the psychology ofauthoritarian hierarchy. Hierarchies of power, especially those thatpurport to be spiritual, are based on a hierarchy of value where theleader is considered better, purer, or essentially different. Next comestheheir-apparentor innercircle.Thiscreatesseparationbetweenthoseat different levels, and also between the group as a whole and thoseoutsidethehierarchy.Surrenderingtoaguruthusinvolvessurrenderingto a hierarchical mode of relating that has within it dominance andsubmission.3Afterthenewnessofconversionwearsoff,somedoubtmayreturn.To

maintain allegiance, a support system that reinforces people’s newidentity is crucial. Power within the group is gained by deepeningsurrender to theguru,andmembers rewardeachother formaking thegroupthepriority.Deepeningsurrenderdoesfeel like lettinggoofegoand is defined by the guru as spiritual progress. Secrecy and arousingdesireareimportantpartsoftheseduction.Thegurudanglescarrotsofesoteric knowledge that he will transmit when he deems the disciple“ready.”Waitingforeachnewpieceofhiddenknowledgenotonlykeepsdevotees around, but receiving pieces of it (one never gets it all)confirms their worthiness and specialness. Now they, too, haveknowledgethatothersdonot.Anyconflictdiscipleshaveaboutsubmittingtotheguru’sauthorityis

definedpejorativelyasresistancetoahighertruth,theintrusionofego,or a sign of unwillingness to give up attachments. Since surrenderinitially alleviates conflict and brings extremely good feelings, it is apowerfulformofconditioning.Ifpeopleendupfeelinggoodandmoreopen,theymistakenlyconcludethatwhateverpromoteditmustalsobetrue and good. Thus “feeling good” and opening boundaries areerroneously equated with truth. Conversely, anything that contradictstheguru’spointofviewislabeled“negativity”;soinformationthatrunscounter to accepted beliefs is repressed and punished. This ployconvenientlypreventsnegativefeelingsfrombeingusedasfeedbackthat

somethingmightbeamiss.People whose power is based on the surrender of others develop arepertoire of techniques for deflecting and undermining anything thatquestionsorchallengestheirstatus,behavior,orbeliefs.Theyridiculeortry to confuse people who ask challenging questions. Throwing thequestionback at the questioner is a common, easy-to-use ploy. This isdonebyattemptingtoshowhowthequestiondisplayssomelackinthequestioner.Forexample, shouldsomeoneaskhowit is thatonewhosemessagepromotesausteritylivessolavishly,thistypeofreplyisusual:“Youdonotunderstandthetruenatureofausterity,whichhasnothingtodowith external circumstances.Trueausterity is a state totally freefromattachmentsandcomparison.Doyouthinkanyof thismatters tome?Becausethismatterstoyouandyoucompareyourselfwithothers,youarenotfree.Theuniversesupportsthetrulyliberatedasamatterofcourse.”Themessageherenotonlyfaultsthequestioner,but intimatesthatthroughtheguru’steachings,onecaneventuallyhaveitall,too.Another ploy is callingwhatever seems to be problematic a “test offaith.”Asthesetestsbecomemoreextreme,thereleasethatpassingthetestbringsisalsomoreintense.Thisiswhyitispossiblefortheleadertogethisincreasinglybizarrebehaviorsaccepted.Anythingcanbelookeduponasatestoffaith.Oncereasonhasbeenundermined,there’snowaylogically to refute this system—that’s why people who are ordinarilyconsidered highly intelligent can become involved in believing, doing,andjustifyingjustaboutanything.A number of gurus have made statements to the effect thatdisobedienceordisrespectoftheguruhasmoreseverenegativespiritualconsequences thanother formsofmorallyunacceptablebehaviors.Oneeven said that suchdisrespect canbring thousandsof lifetimesofpainandsuffering.Whateverelse is involved, it shouldbeobvious that fearand threats are being used here for control. As the guru’s power isdependent on the disciples’ surrender, he does what is necessary tomaintain that state.Stillanotherploy isparcelingout,or takingaway,poweroverothersinthegroup.Mysteriousorsupernaturalpowershavealwaysbeenusedtovalidatereligious authorities. Even today many people operate under a basicassumption that the ability to perform some act that defies ordinaryexplanationmeansthepersonwhodoesthishasaninsidetracktotruth,

or “higher” truth.Shouldanyonebe seen floating (orbelieved tohavebeen floating) over the ground,many peoplewould take this person’swordsandopinionsonotherthingsveryseriously.Special powers people are reputed to have include healing,transmitting energy that gives others special experiences, and feats ofmagic such as materializing objects. One guru promised peoplelevitationand invisibility throughhispractices.With suchphenomena,the usual concerns involve what’s really going on. Are these powersmagical, or some kind of ESP, or chicanery that depends on people’sgullibilityandreadinesstobelieve?Isthesourceofenergytransmissionsin the guru, or within a relational matrix where the receivers have aparticularopennesstoreceive?Isexperiencingintenseenergyasignofspirituality,or is theexperience in the sameveinasyoung ladieswhoswoon in thepresenceof rock stars?And then there is thequestionofwhetherspecialtraitsarenecessarilyanindicationofspecialwisdom.Our interest is not so much in explanations of the nature of thesephenomena,but inhowtheyareusedbythosewhoclaimtodothem.Therealityandsourceofmagicaleventscanbeendlesslydebated.Whatcan be easily seen, however, is whether they are being used to gaindominance, bolster credibility in other areas,make peopleworshipful,and create a context where the “miracle worker” becomes anunchallengeableauthority.Whenmagicliesatthebaseofauthority,nomatterhowelevatedthepeopleappear,theyareengagedinperhapstheoldestployofauthoritarianmindcontrol.Whenever powers are utilized as credentials to disarm reason andmakepeopleblindfollowers,thereislittlewisdomthere.Theideathatwisdom is justified by magical ability is even questioned withintraditionalEasternthought.Tryingtocultivateorbeingenthralledwithspecial powers is considered one of the great dangers of the spiritualpath.Themajoruseof themiraculoushasbeen to impress.Forus therealmystery iswhypeopledisplay theirpurportedpowers in somanyirrelevant or even trivial ways. Although healing individuals, howeverit’sdone,isafinething,itdoesnothavethegreatplanetaryimpactonemightexpectfromoneclaimingtobeGod’smostspecialrepresentative.Aworldonthebrinkofself-destructioncanuseall thehelpitcanget.Bottomline,thosewhouseanythingseeminglyoutoftheordinarytogetotherstobowdowntothemshouldbeheldsuspect.4

Theguru’s specialness ispresentedas the resultofmany lifetimesofpurification. So it is tacitly implied that one’s advancement can neverapproach theguru’sexaltedstate—at leastnot in this lifetime. It is fareasiertosurrendertoaprojectionofperfectionthantosomeonewhoisessentially like you. Thus gurus routinely take on images that peoplehavebeenconditionedtoassociatewithdivinity:all-wise,all-good,all-powerful, or someapproximation thereof. They all claim tobe able tolead people to salvation, enlightenment, bliss, self-knowledge,immortality, peace, an end to sorrow, and ultimately being one withGod. These states are conveniently as difficult to reach as they arecompelling.Gurusalsoclaimtobestowunconditionalloveonthosewhosurrendertothem,whileactuallywhateveremotionalconnectionexistsis conditional on surrender and obedience. They cultivate images thatcatertothedisciples’preconceivedideasofspiritualityasselflesspurity.Inshort,gurusbasicallytelldiscipleswhattheywanttohear,includinghowspecialandwisetheyareforsurrenderingtothem.Thedeceitunderlyingmostploysisthattheguruhasnoself-interest

atall.Thetraditionalidealofenlightenmentallowsthisdeceitfreereignbecause the guru is placed in a category beyond the knowledge andjudgment of others. Fromhere gurus can rationalize any contradictorybehavior. The traditional idea that once enlightened, one can doanything is also attractive todiscipleswho secretlyhope this iswheretheir sacrificeswill eventually lead them.Tied into this is theOnenessworldview that sees the unity of all existence as the ultimate reality.Withinthis framework,separationor individuation isconsideredeitheranout-and-outillusionoratbestlessrealthanunity.Thegurupresentshimself,and isviewedbyhis followers,asanego-lessmanifestationofthis unity. Thus the concepts of Oneness and enlightenment work intandem to create a closed systemwhere each validates the other: theOneness ideologypostulates that a few special people are enlightened,whointurnverifytheideologyofOneness.Tobethoughtenlightened,onemustappearnotonlycertainthatone

is,butcertainaboutmosteverythingelse,too.Certaintyinareaswhereothers are uncertain and have strong desires automatically sets up theguru’s dominance. Since those without self-trust look for certainty inothers, power is just there for the taking by anyone who puts out amessage that tells people, with certitude, what they want to hear. In

addition,togetfollowerswhatisneededisamessagepromisingdesireswill be realized, and facility in handling people’s challenges andconfusions.CertaintycombinedwiththetraditionalOnenessframeworkgives the guru a relatively easy-to-maintain position of unassailability.MouthingwordsofOnenesssuchas“Weareallone”or“Everythingisperfect”iseasytodoandcandeflectanychallengeordoubt.Problemsarisingfromindividuatedlifecanbemadetoappeartrivial,andasignthat the questioner has serious “ego problems.” Deflecting everythingbacktoothers’lacksisasimple,age-oldployofanyoneinapositionofunchallengeability.5Anotherrelatedployisplacinghighvalueondetachment,whichalsoderives from theOnenessworldview. If unity is the basic reality, thenbeing attached to any individual expression of it is said to obstructachievingenlightenment.Notcoincidentally,thisservesasaconvenientconcept to get people to give everything to the guru, includingthemselves. And indeed, gurus urge people to detach from everythingbutthem.Themessageis“Youcan’tbecomeenlightenedifyou’restuckonthematerialplanewithattachments.”Tobeattachedispresentedasbeing ego-bound. Preaching renunciation and self-sacrifice is bydefinitionauthoritarian—itmeansanauthority tellingyouwhatyou’resupposed to renounce. If a person buys this ideology, then detachingfrompossessions,relationships,andevenone’sidentitycanatfirstmakeonefeelbetterbecausetheyaretheusualsourcesofpsychologicalpain.6Taking on beliefs because they alleviate conflict is part of theunconscious code underlying authoritarian control.7 In our view, anyimmediate solutions or solace that come from authoritarian controlbecometomorrow’sproblems.1“TheAssaultonReason”describessomekey functionsofcritical thoughtandtheeffectsofunderminingit.2Meditation techniques are oftenpresented as devoid of any ideologyor programming.Thesection on Buddhism in Control shows the ways even the most seemingly simple and “pure”techniquescancontainhiddenauthoritarianprescriptionsandbeusedsurreptitiouslytoprogramagivenworldview.3See“TheAttractionsofCultHierarchy.”4See“OnChannelingDisembodiedAuthorities.”ThechapteronmagicinControlelaboratesontheseideas.5“Oneness, Enlightenment, and the Mystical Experience” discusses the function ofenlightenment,andwhyit isamistaketotrytosolvetheproblemsof individuatedlifewitha

paradigmofunitythatdoesnotgiveequalweighttodiversity.6“Buddhism and the Abuse of Detachment” in Control contains a detailed analysis of the

problemswithcultivatingdetachment.7“WhoIs inControl?TheAuthoritarianRootsofAddiction”describesaspectsofthiscodein

detail,muchofwhichisunconscious.

TTheAssaultonReason

omaintainmentalcontrolit isnecessarytoundermineself-trust.This is insidiously done by removing theways people can build

trust in themselves. Self-trust is built by utilizing one’s own personal,firsthand experience as feedback. It is also built by sharpeningmentalandperceptualtoolsandframeworksinordertoprocess,integrate,andevaluateone’srelationtotheexternalworld,aswellastoinnerdramas.It is commonly assumed that the nature of spirituality is not only

fundamentally different from ordinary experience, but that thisdifference isvastly superior.From this it is concluded that the testsoftruthormeaningused forordinaryexperiencearenot relevant for theso-called higher truths that gurus and religion offer. This age-oldseparationofthespiritualfromtheworldlyisdeeplyembeddedinallofcivilization. We view this split as tragic, and at the core of thefragmentationprevalent in thecontemporaryhumanpsyche.The innerbattlebetweenthepresumedhigherandlower(orgoodandbad)partsof oneself often binds people with conflict bymaking them unable toacceptthemselvesaswholehumanbeings.1We are in no way negating the occurrence and importance of

transcendent experiences that cannot be encapsulated by thought.Actuallyanyexperience,by itsnature, isdifferent fromthewords thattrytodescribeit.Thisincludesthemeaningofthecolorred,aswellasthe essence ofwhat love is. That reasonhas limits is also true. But toconcludethatreasonisthereforeuselessorevenharmfulinintegratingall these experiences is not true. Reason is not only a useful andnecessarytooltosortthingsout,butitisinsidiouslydangeroustorejectit.TheEasternviewofenlightenmentasbeyondreasonallowsgurusto

undermine reason.2 This precept alone makes the guru dangerouslyfeedback-proof, for he automatically escapes accountability for anybehavior. If pressed, the guru can easily reply, “You can’t possibly

understandwhatI’mreallydoingbecauseyou’renotenlightened.”Thisstance,ifbelieved,makesacceptableanyincongruitybetweenidealsandaction.Thegurucanreverseanychallengeorcriticismbysaying, “It’syourproblem;youregoisgettingintheway.”He,ofcourse,hasnoego.Common phrases used as barriers against anything that questionsspiritual authority are: “That’smerelymental” (or analytical, rational,psychological). “Your ego is experiencing resistance.” “You’re comingfromtheheadinsteadoftheheart.”“That’salow-levelconsiderationofthematerialworld.”3Once critical faculties are disarmed, followers can accept the mostbizarreandinconsistentbehaviors:Guruspreachtheunityofallbeing,while isolating themselves fromallwhodonotagreewith them.Theypreach austerity and live lavishly. They preach equality and demanddeference from their followers, who, following the lead of their idol,manage to feel superior to those deemed less spiritual. Anything thegurudoescanbeviewedasatestoffaithandcommitment.Gurus undercut reason as a path to understanding. When they doallowdiscursiveinquiry,theyoftenplacethehighestvalueonparadox.Paradox easily lends itself to mental manipulation. No matter whatposition you take, you are always shown to bemissing the point; thepoint being that the guru knows something you do not. Paradox isusually accomplished by shifting levels of abstraction. In esoteric“spirituality,”thisshiftisfromtherealmofindividuatedexistencetotheabstractlevelofanoverallunity.Forexample,whenviewingexistenceas comprised of separate entities, individual people are the locus ofsuffering. The concept of unity does away with individuals. Bycombining the different levels and ignoring that they are different,paradoxicalstatementscanbemade,suchas“Thereissuffering,yetnoonesuffers”and“Allimperfectionisperfect.”Bychangingthecontextinthis way, almost anything can be made into a paradox, therebyintimating special wisdom. Paradox can also be used to justify anybehavior by saying there is a hidden meaning that is part of theparadoxicalnatureofthings,whichofcourse,onlytheguruadequatelyunderstands.4Withsome, it is fashionable todenigratereasonandelevateemotionor intuition in an attempt to transcend the dryness of mechanisticscience and linear thought. But using emotion or intuition without

reasonisasone-sidedandlimitedasusingreasonalone.Forjustastheheadwithouttheheartisbarren,theheartwithouttheheadisrigidorchaotic. Living creatively is the art of combining passion withunderstanding. Without reason, one easily becomes a “true believer”whotakesonbeliefsthatgeneratewantedemotions.Here,whenthoughtisused,itfunctionstoprotectthesebeliefsbybuildinganimpregnable,closedsystemthat is impenetrable to logic,experiences thatdonot fit,andinconsistencies(whetherbehavioralormental).Sanity involves the capacity to respond to information, internal andexternal, in a way that contains the possibility of change. Interferingwiththisprocessisoneofthemostsubtleandbasicabusesofauthority—that is, the denial of, or even assault on, the followers’ basicexperiences and discriminatory capacities. This allows a leader tomanipulateevenhighlyeducatedpeople,especially if their intelligencedidnotbringthemfulfillment.Reason does not guarantee wisdom. It is, however, a tool forintegrating experience,which isnecessary for self-trust,withoutwhichthere can be little wisdom. When critical intelligence is labeledunspiritual,orahindrancetohighertruths,what is left?There is littleoptionbuttotakethewordorworldviewofsomehigherauthority.1See“WhoIsinControl?TheAuthoritarianRootsofAddiction”ontheinnerbattle.2See“Oneness,Enlightenment,andtheMysticalExperience.”3“GuruPloys”givesotherexamplesofdisarmingreason.4Formoreonparadox,see“TheOne-SidednessofOneness”in“Oneness.”Thefinalsectionof“The Power of Abstraction” discusses the nature of “the spiritual paradox.” The section onBuddhism inControl goes into the authoritarianuses of paradox (particularly in Zen) inmoredetail.

MStagesofCultsProselytizingtoParanoia

ostcultsfollowapredictableprogressionoftwodistinctstages,whichindicatesthatwhatisinvolvedismoreafunctionofhow

authoritarianstructuresworkthanoftheparticularteachingsofagivenguru. The similarity of these stages among diverse groups alsodemonstrateshowbeingacult leadercreatesatrackthatisdifficult, ifnotimpossible,toescape.

MessianicProselytizing

Cults generally put out a similar message, each proclaiming theirspecialness. The leader and the group are touted to be at the cuttingedge of awareness, spirituality, evolution (whatever). They are theheraldsofanewagewhichwillbringatransformativequalitytolivingandsolvetheworld’sproblems.As longas themovement isgaining instrengthandmembership,thisattitudeisreinforced.Believingtheyareonthecrestofplanetarychange,thefeelingandoverallmienwithinthegroup and leader is one of optimism and satisfaction. Their stancetowardoutsidersisofbenignsuperiority.Otherswillcatchuporseethelightinduetime.Thisfirststageismessianicwiththemessagebeingthatall laborsof

the organization, including the guru’s, are aimed at a higher purposebeyondthegroup,suchassavingmankind.Duringthisphasetheguruisconfidentthathewilleventuallybeacknowledgedastheonewhowillleadtheworldoutofdarkness.Themajoremphasis isonproselytizingtobringinnewconverts.Thecontinualincreaseinnumberssatisfiestheguru’s need for power and adulation. While there is still hope ofbecoming the acknowledged herald of a new order, he remains happyandrelativelybenigninhistreatmentofthosewhohavesurrenderedtohim.Aslongasthegurustillseesthepossibilityofrealizinghisambitions,

thewayheexercisespoweristhroughrewardingtheenthusiasmsofhisfollowerswithpraiseandpositions inhishierarchy.Healsowhetsandmanipulates desire by offering “carrots,” and promising that throughhimthedisciples’desireswillberealized,possiblyeveninthislifetime.Thegroupitselfbecomesanechooftheguru,withthemembersfillingeach other’s needs. Within the community there is a sense of bothintimacy and potency, and a celebratory, party-like atmosphere oftenreigns. Everything seems perfect: everyone is moving along theappropriate spiritual path. The guru is relatively accessible, charming,evenfun.Alldreamsarerealizable—evenwonderfulpossibilitiesbeyondone’sken.

Theenergyandexcitementofproselytizing,conquest,gainingpublicattention,andofnewcomersflockingtothegrouparewhatmakesacultfeelvitalandprosperous.Cultsneedacontinuousstreamofrecruitsandpotentialconvertstoreinforcethebeliefthatthey’re“whereit’sat”—thevanguardofspiritualityontheplanet.Proselytizingisanengagingformofseductionthatbringsbothreaffirmationandcreditfor“doinggood.”Feeling in the vanguard fuels moral superiority and cuts insiders offemotionally from outsiders, which binds them more deeply to eachother.Becausecults are relatively closed systems,proselytizing is theirmainformofcommunicationwiththeoutsideworld.Newmembersarealsoaneededsourceofrevenue.Allthemajorcult-likeorganizationsthathavecapturedpeople’smindshave used similar approaches for marketing themselves. What mostproselytizinggroupsfaceishowtoselltheirbeliefswithoutappearingtodo so. Recruiting is therefore always done in the name of helping ordoingsomekindofgood.Theunderlyingmessagethesegroupsgivetotheirmembersisthatsincetheyareonthecuttingedgeofevolution,tocareaboutothersistogetthemtojoin.Newrecruitsattendtestimonialsessions with older members as part of the indoctrination. They aretreatedveryspeciallyandmadetofeelimportant,andthenaretypicallypressuredto“sharetheirexperiences”withothers.What such sharing really amounts to is a more oblique form ofproselytizingthatcleverlyaccomplishesseveralthings:Itobviouslycanbringinmorenewpeople,butlessobviously,themoreneworpotentialmembers share their experienceswith outsiders, trying to explain anddefendwhythegroupattractsthem,themoretheythemselvesidentifywiththegroup.Newmembershavegreatenthusiasm,butareoftennotyetemotionallytiedtothegroup.Inthiscontext,proselytizingitselfisasubtlekindofindoctrination,astheveryactof“sharing”movesonetoidentifymorewiththegroup.A particular form of seduction that the group participates in withthoseflirtingwithjoiningissimilartosexualconquest.Thegrouppoursan enormous amount of focused energy and attention into potentialrecruits until they surrender to the group’s authority,which of coursehas the guru and his belief system at its center. When someone doessurrender,everyonecelebratesthenewbonding.Thisisabitlikeanewmarriage, and for the recruit, it is the honeymoonphase. This lasts as

longas itdoes,and then the focusof thegroupshiftselsewhere. (Thisalsohappensinromanticlove,foraftertheconquestthewooer’sinterestand focus oftenmove somewhere else.)When the honeymoon is over,thenewconvertsmust shift roles—frombeing thewooed tobeing thewooer.Throughproselytizing,theinsidiouspleasuresofseduction,conquest,anddominancealsoensnaretherecruiters intothegroupmoredeeply.Themorepowerproselytizersgainininteractionwithoutsiders,throughbeing the focus of attention and the holders ofmysterious knowledge,themorethismakesthem—thewooers—feelspecial.Thebettertheyareat evoking the listener’s curiosity anddesire, thebetter itmakes themfeel about themselves. These good feelings further reinforce theirconviction of being on the right path. People typically use this newsourceofpower,withitsinbuiltpleasures,asverificationthattheyhaveindeedfoundtruth,thusbecomingmoreconfidenttheyareright.Power and certainty do feel better than weakness and confusion.Unfortunately, such feelings make self-delusion more rather than lesslikely. When dealing with others who are less certain, simply havingcertainty gives dominance. The more certain one is, the stronger onefeels,whichdoesattractothers.This in turn reinforcesone’s certainty,creating a self-propelling loop that can feel great. It is extraordinarilydifficultnottobecomeattachedtothebeliefsthatpromoteone’spower.In order to sell well, it is most helpful to believe in the product.Conveniently,themorevestedinterestonehasinaproduct,theeasieritistobelieveinit.

ApocalypticParanoia

A time inevitably comeswhen the popularity and power of the groupplateaus and then begins towane. Eventually it becomes obvious thatthe guru is not going to take over the world, at least not in theimmediate future. When the realization comes that humanity is toostupidorblindtoacknowledgethehigherauthorityandwisdomoftheguru,theapocalypticphaseentersandthepartyisover.Thenoneoftwothings generally happens: The first is that the guru’s message turnspessimisticordoomsday,voicingsomethinglikethis:“Sooncivilizationisgoingtobreakdownandfaceamazingdisasters—exceptforus,whoarewiselywithdrawingtoprotectourselvesandretainourpurity.Thisgroup will survive as a pocket of light amidst the darkness; thenafterwardswewillleadforthanewage.”Theotherpossibilityisthatinordertoattractmorepeople,theguru

makesincreasinglyextremepromisesandbizarreclaimsthatofferoccultpowers, quick enlightenment, or evenwish-fulfillment in themundanesphere around wealth, love, and power. One guru went so far as topromise levitation and invisibility; another group claims that throughproper daily chanting, people can achieve their every desire, gettinganythingtheywant—anything.Theyjustifysuchpanderingtogreedbysaying that realizing all desires is the fastest path to detachment fromdesire. Either of these tacks—predicting disaster or making grandpromises—is counter-productive in the long run, since most peoplewouldprefertoalignwithanoptimisticviewpointandaretakenabackbyoutrageousclaims.The attitude of benign superiority toward outsiders characteristic of

the expansionistic phase dramatically shifts when the group turnsapocalyptic. It is the outsiderswhowill receive the brunt ofwhatevercataclysmtheguruclaimswillcome.Nowtherearedirewarningsabout“the dangers of associatingwith anyone not on this path.” The fervorshiftsfromworld-savingtoaholocaustmentalityfocusedonthesurvivaland protection of the group. Any member who leaves threatens thecohesiveness of thewhole group.Thismountingmistrust is not totally

paranoid (there is some reason for it) because as the group becomesmore closedandbizarre, outsiders reactmorenegatively.Disciples areoften asked to put aside temporarily their concerns for their ownspiritual advancement, and to work hard to become a pocket of lightthatwillsurvivetheholocaust.Proselytizingturnstoentrenchment.Oneguruhadeveryonebusybuildingbombshelters.Atthispoint,cultsoftenhavememberslearnmartialartsorbeginstockpilingweapons.Fearnowbecomes the primarymechanism of the leader and group tomaintainpowerandcohesion.The transition from optimistic expansionism to the paranoiddoomsdaymode involves aheavy turnoverof people.Thosenot really“serious”leave,andothersbeginsurreptitiouslytoquestiontheleader’somniscience.Inanattempttocounteractthis,thegroupbecomesmoremilitaristic,demandingevengreaterobedience.Evenwhenacult isnolonger expanding, some recruiting of new members still occurs tobalanceoffthelossesofoldonesduringtheturnoverofthisphase.Butacult in decline has more trouble selling itself. It no longer looks thatenticing or special. Nevertheless,members still manage to feel specialsincetheyareconvincedtheyhavebeensingledouttosurvive.Members and the guru become withdrawn and the focus gets moreinternal, insular, and isolating. Internecine squabbling and powerstruggles replace external conquest. When the guru realizes that mostpeoplearenotgoing toacknowledgehim,heoftencompensates (ifhecan afford it) by building monumental edifices that proclaim hisgreatness. This includes monuments or temples, buildings, modelcommunities, and “learning centers.”The fun is over.The rewards arenow put into the distant future (including future lives) and areachievableonly throughhardwork.Thisnotonlykeepsdisciplesbusyand distracted, but it is necessary because the flow of resources thatcamewithexpansionhasgreatlydiminished.Thisglorificationofworkalways involves improving the leader’s property (the commune orashram),increasinghiswealth,orsomegrandioseproject.Wheneveraguru’spowerneedsarenotbeingsatisfiedbyexpansion,hegenerallyseeksmoreadulationfromandcontroloverthosewhohavesurrendered to him. He does so by dictating more directly how theyspendtheirdailylives.Needingnowmorethanevertobehisdisciples’prime emotional bond, the guru undermines anything that interferes

with this.1 Though the guruneedshis disciples evenmore attached tohim,hebecomesmoreremote,sendinghisdictatesdowntheline.Subtleornotsosubtlewarningsproliferateaboutthedisastrousconsequencesof disobedience and of trusting outsiders. Statements like this becomeprevalent: “Disobedience to the guru brings countless lifetimes ofsuffering.” “Howcanyou expect enlightenment or salvation if you arenot obedient and do not work hard for it?” “You must not polluteyourselfbyassociatingwiththosewhoarenotspirituallydeveloped.”Although the guru usually preaches the unity of all humanity, hebecomes increasingly more separate. His message is of love, but heshows little concern for those under him, as they have become meretools for his ambitions. Often he consciously or unconsciously blamesthose around him for the failure of his messianic aspirations. As thegroup’sisolationincreases,sodoesitsparanoiatowardoutsiders,whichcantriggerviolence.Thosewhodropoutareoftenthreatened,violentlypunished,orsometimesevenmurdered.Thisstagecommonlyresultsinscandalandtragedy.Authoritarian groups with a leader who has few constraints (ourdefinition of a cult) derive their intense feelings of loyalty and unityfrom erecting huge walls between insiders and outsiders.2 This is aneasy, mechanical route to intimacy that will be attractive as long asalienation is rife. Such rigid boundaries render cults both brittle andeasilythreatened, leavingonlyeitherproselytizingorparanoiaaswaysof relating to others. The potential for violence and abuse in anauthoritariancultisalwaysthere,notonlybecausewhatevertheleadersaysgoes,butalsobecauseoutsidersaremadeinto“theOther,”whichhasalwaysbeenusedtojustifyviolence.31“GurusandSexualManipulation”describesavarietyofwaysthisisdone.2Wedefine “cult” as a groupwhere the leader is unchallengeable and considered infallible.Theterm“guru”isusedgenericallyforanysuchleader.See“Religion,Cults,andtheSpiritualVacuum”formoreoncultsandgurus,andacomparisonofcultsandreligion.3See“JimJonesandtheJonestownMassSuicide.”

ITheAttractionsofCultHierarchy

mages of omniscience and perfection automatically generatehierarchicalrelations.Thestructureoftheorganizationthatdisciples

mustfitintoisalwayspyramidal,withofcoursetheleaderontop.Nextcomes the very close inner circle of a few people who also becometeachers and surrogate leaders in the guru’s absence, then anadministrative hierarchy, and so forth. Both gurus and disciples usehierarchical relationships for power. Everyone on the hierarchy getstheirfeelingsofpowerandspecialnessfromwheretheyarepositioned.Eventhoseonthelowestrungcanfeelsuperiortothosewhohavenothad the intelligence to become members. A hierarchy is a way oforganizingpower;italsoisavehicleforfillingneedsasitcreatesgoalsandmeaning.Itmightappearthatwearecriticalofhierarchyingeneral.Thisisnot

so. It is common in certain circles toblamehierarchy formanyof theworld’sproblemsandinjustices,particularlybecausehierarchyhasbeenuniversally used to maintain power and privilege. Once it enters aculture,however, there isnogoingback.This isbecause it isauniquesocial tool for organizing and directing large numbers of people.Hierarchiesenableasocietytospecializeandgrow,andthenareneededtoorganizethelargerpopulation.Thoughhumanityisstuckwithhierarchy,itneednotbeintrinsically

authoritariannorunjust.Becauseauthoritarianismishierarchicalbyitsnature, it is easy to assume the reverse, that hierarchy is necessarilyauthoritarian.Thisassumption ismadebecauseauthoritarianhierarchyhasbeen,andstill isby far, thepredominantplanetarymodeof socialorganization. It is thewaterwe swim in.Authoritarianhierarchies arepropped upwith an authoritarian worldview andmorality. Nomattertheir stated rationale, their main purpose always becomes self-perpetuation,whichinevitablycorruptsthem.1Participationinanauthoritarianhierarchyisaneasyroutetopurpose

andmeaningthatalsoofferssecurity,ifonefollowstherules.Movingupthe rungs brings power and respect. All this, however, is totallydependent upon accepting the ultimate power of the leader. This, ofcourse, brings a deep attachment to and dependency on both thehierarchicalstructureandtheleaderontop.Religioushierarchiesoftenputoutamessage(sometimescovert) thatpositionon thehierarchy isrelated to spiritual advancement.With gurus, this is measured by thedepthof thedisciple’s surrender,which translates towillingobedienceand self-sacrifice.Deeperdevotion to theguru isprescribedas the fasttracknotonlytospiritualgoals,butalsotomovingupthehierarchy.The organization’s hierarchical structure neatly fits the disciples’psychological needs to make progress, and to be able to evaluatethemselves (measure their progress) with regard to others. Whateverone’sposition,onecanfeelbetterthanthosewhohavenotprogressedasfar. Many people are conditioned to continually improve and movetoward a higher goal as their deepest source ofmeaning. The need toprove one’s worth continually is often an indication of an implantedauthoritarianmorality,withaninnerauthoritarianwhojudgesoneselftobenotgoodenough.2Thisleadspeopletoseekanexternalauthorityforsomekindofbenediction.Sincespiritualhierarchiescontainready-madestepsforadvancement,theyofferquickaccesstofeelingbetterthroughimproving. Gurus put out enticing hints about the next rung of thespiritual ladder. This reinforces one of the emotions people easily getattached to—yearning. Yearning, looking up to, and step-by-step goalstoward attaining the ideal are interconnected parts of the psychologyunderlyingspiritualhierarchy.To those observing such authoritarian groups from the outside, itappears that members give up their power to the leader. But mostdisciplesdidnothaveverymuchpersonalpowertobeginwith.Whatinfact has been given up is their power of self-determination. Since formany their previous choices did not bring them what they wanted,givingupself-determinationdoesnotatfirstseemlikemuchofaloss.Peopleareespeciallyvulnerabletocharismaticleadersduringtimesofcrisisormajorlifechange.Mostoftenthosewhoenterintothiskindofauthoritarian group are having problems bringing meaning, humanconnection, and good feelings into their lives, all of which becomeinstantlyavailableuponjoining.Whattheyalsogainisasenseofpower,

usually greater than any they previously had. Although seeminglyrelinquishingtheirpower,theyactuallytradewhatlittlepersonalpowertheyhadtopiggybackontheguru’spower.Occasionallypeoplewhodidhavepowerelsewhereforsaketheiroldlivestobecomedisciples,largelybecause their previous successeswere unsatisfying. Interestingly, thesepeopleusuallyendupintheguru’sinnercircle.Thehigheruponeisintheorganization,themoreone’spowerandevenlivelihoodarehookedinto it and the guru. This makes it very difficult not to accept,rationalize,ordenyanyincongruent,greedy,orcorruptbehavioronthepartoftheguruortheorganizationasawhole.Typically the guru lets it be known that he is on the crest ofevolutionaryawareness(orwhateverisheldimportant),andthatanyonewho joins him can participate in being on the wave of history.Competitivenessisbuiltintothepostureofbeingonthecuttingedge.Inordertogetandkeepmembers,eachgroupmustbelieveinanddefendits superior position, and claim to be the best at doing whatever isvalued.3Peopledon’twanta second-rateguru; theywant theonewhoseemsthe best. Since purity is the standard of measurement—the gold orGreenwichmeridiantimeoftheguruworld—eachguruhastoclaimthemostsuperlativetraits.Thisisnaturallyabreedinggroundforhypocrisy,lies,andthecultivationoffalseimagesofpurity.Gurusarethusforcedto assume the role of the highest, the best, themost enlightened, themost loving, the most selfless, the purest representative of the mostprofoundtruths; for if theydidnot,peoplewouldgotoonewhodoes.Consequently, it is largely impossible foraguru topermithimself realintimacy, which in adults requires a context of equality. All hisrelationships must be hierarchical, since that is the foundation of hisattractionandpower.It is ironic how deeply competition is built into this profession thatcharacteristically so strongly condemns it.We are not taking gurus totaskforbeingcompetitiveinandofitself.Rather,wearecriticaloftheclaimsgurusmakeofbeingbeyond it. Insofarasguruswish to remainon top of the hierarchy, they must compete and win against allchallenges. By presenting themselves as beyond competition, guruspromote a system of values that denigrates competition. Any whocompetewith themaredeemedwrong fordoing so.This isoneof the

waysgurususe competition to remainon topwithout appearing todoso.4Asisthecaseinallhighlycompetitiveactivities,thosewhorisetothe

top are extremely good at what they do. They are most usuallycharismaticpeoplewhoaremastersatmanipulatingimageandemotion.The manipulation of images is the game played in most effectiveadvertising; proselytizing and advertising are cut from the same cloth.The enormous attention given to appearance leads to a concern forpackaging rather thanwhat’s inside thepackage.Focusingon image isessentiallyshallow;thedepthofaspiritualteachingisusuallyinverselyproportionaltotheamountofitsaccouterments,costumes,pomp,titles,andsacredsymbols.Thenature of such so-called spiritual hierarchies is that everyone at

everylevelhasaroletoplayandanimagetokeepup.Thisisespeciallytrue of the guru, who not only defines how those under him are toappear,butmusthimselfpresenttheimagehisdiscipleswantandneed.Since the roles are so highly defined, the people who fill them aresomewhat interchangeable. Hierarchies in general foster modularitysincewhatcountsis fittingintotheirrungsandroles.Thedisciplerolecan be filled by anyone who properly surrenders to the guru. Sinceadulationfromanyonepersoneventuallybecomesboring,gurusdonotneedanyspecificdisciple—theyneedlotsofthem.Gurusdogivespecialattention to those with wealth or power; having celebrities in one’sentourageincreasescoffers,influence,andmembership.Whatappearstobe a strong personal bond between guru and disciple is illusory, as itdepends solely upon the disciple acknowledging the guru’s authority.Shouldthatbreak,littleremains.Theroleofguruislikewisefairlymodular.Whatmatterstodisciples

ishavinganidealizedimageofperfectiontosurrenderto.Suchimagesdocomeindifferentflavorsthatappealtodifferentkindsofpeople:thestern but caring parent; the cosmic jokester; the fount of love andacceptance;theknower;the(seemingly)liberatingiconoclastwhofreespeople from inhibitions; and the partying “you can have it all” type.(The last two often go together.) These different styles each attract adifferent clientele. For example, the stern parent tends to attract thealienatedyoung;theknowercouldappealtointellectualswhoseintellecthas not given them a great deal of comfort; the iconoclast naturally

attractsrebels.What theguru is really like isdifficult toascertain.Thoseat the topusuallydisplaycontentmentandequanimity,whicharemistakenlytakenassignsofspirituality.Successfulgurus,likemonarchsofold,havetheireverywhimcateredtoandaretotallytakencareof.Andalthoughmanysaytheydonotneedanyspecialtreatmentandwouldbeashappyinacave,thepowerandadulationattheirdisposalaremoreseductivethananydrug.Itisnotsurprisingtheyappearturnedon,especiallyinpublic.Lookingcarefullyataguru’sinnercircleisextremelyrevealing.Thoseclosesttohim,hismostdedicatedstudents,displaybetterthananythingelse where his teaching leads after years of exposure. What is alsodisplayed is who he prefers to have around him: Are they strong andinteresting in their own right, or are they boring sycophants whocontinuallyfeedhisego?Dodisciplesever“graduate”andbecomeself-definingadults,ordo they remainobedientand tied to theguru? It isalsoveryenlighteningtoobservehowgurustreatandrefertothosewholeavetheirfold.Theperson at the apexof ahierarchical pyramid,whosepower is afunction of being in that position, cannot show weakness or realcommonalitywiththosebelow.Manygurusvociferouslyclaimthattheydiscourage worshipful attitudes in their followers, “Alas to no avail.”This isanothermanipulationof image, therealitybeing thatgurusarepowerfulenoughtoconstructwhateverenvironmentaroundthemtheywant. Especially in situations involving power, it ismost important topaymoreattentiontowhatpeopledothantowhattheysay.1See“Authority,Hierarchy,andPower”onhowahierarchycanbenon-authoritarian.2See “Who Is in Control? The Authoritarian Roots of Addiction” for an explanation of thesourceofinadequacybehindthecontinualstrivingtoimprove.3See“StagesofCults”formoreonthemessianicphaseofsuchgroups.4See“GuruPloys”forotherwaysgurusmaintaindominance.

SGurusandSexualManipulation

ocial orders always deemed it necessary to control people’ssexualitywhenwealthandpowerwerepassedfromonegeneration

tothenextthroughinheritanceandstructuresoflegitimacy.Inmodernsocietiestechnologicalbreakthroughsinbirthcontrolhaveloosened,butnoteliminated,sexualcontrol.Aprimarysocialfunctionofreligionhasbeen to serve as the moral underpinning that regulates sexualacceptability.Tocontrolapersonsexuallyistohavecontroloverabasicaspect of human life. Sexuality is a deep power in human beings thatunderlies attraction; attraction, the capacity to command attention, isonekeytopersonalpower.Thustoexercisesexualcontrolistohaverealpowerover individualsandsocietyasawhole, throughstructuringthemostbasicconnectionsofmatingandreproduction.Religions all want everyone’s major emotional bond to be with

whatevergodfigurethereligionpresents.Ifthemostimportantthingissalvation—whetherofone’ssoulasintheWest,orprogressingalongthereincarnativechainasintheEast—thenanythingthatdetractsfromthisislookeduponasdetrimental.Thisisonereasonwhysexualityisoftenregarded as low, carnal, animal, even dirty; for sexuality, if leftunfettered, risks putting people out of control—andmore importantly,outofreligion’scontrol.Thusreligionscametodefinewhichexpressionsofsexualitywere(andformanystillare)acceptable,andalsotoprovidesublimatedoutlets through ritual andworship.Yet sex is so basic thatideology alone is not strong enough to control it. Fear and guiltmustalsobeusedascontrolmechanismsofrepression.Gurus likewise domany things to ensure that their disciples’ prime

emotionalallegianceistowardthem.Intherealmofsexuality,thetwoprevalent ways control is exerted are through promulgating eithercelibacy or promiscuity. Although seemingly opposite, both serve thesamefunction:theyminimizethepossibilitiesofpeoplebondingdeeplywith each other, thus reducing factors that competewith the guru forattention.Celibacy,oratleasttheimageofit,istheeasiestrouteforaguruto

obtainthispowerofbeingthecentralemotionalfocusforlargenumbersofpeople.Theverynatureofsexualconnectionhaswithinitpreference,at least in themoment. For a guru to become sexually involved withsomeandnotothers causesahierarchyofpreference.Since theguru’sappealishisostensibleofferofunconditionallovetoall,thiscausesanundercurrentof jealousyandresentmentamongthefollowers.Celibacydoesallowonetomaintainacertainkindofcontrolofone’senergyandemotions. It also conforms with images of purity. Therefore, it is fareasier for a guru to gain and maintain power if he is celibate—orpretendstobe.Celibacyunderminescouplingwhenpresentedasahigher state thansexualintimacy.This,ineffect,getspeopleincouplestosurrendertotheguru rather than to each other. Gurus can exercise control over theirfollowers in the most basic areas by decreeing whether coupling isallowed,whomarrieswhom,howoftenandinwhatcircumstancessexispermitted, whether couples can cohabit, and even whether theyreproduceandhowtoraisethechildren.Somegurusactivelydiscouragehaving children or separate parents from them, which is done todecrease distractions from devotion to the guru. One even let it beknown that having more children was undesirable, and encouragedvasectomies and tube-tying. Similarly, to counteract family influence,gurusoftentrytounderminedisciples’tieswiththeirownparents.

TheBetrayalofTrust

When a religion is transplanted froma conservative culture to amoreexperimentalone,itsleadersarenolongerconstrainedbytradition.TheWest’s looser mores make sexuality practically irresistible for foreigngurusfromrigidlypatriarchalculturesinwhichthesexeswereseparatedandcloselymonitored.Theavailabilityofsexy,adoringfemaledisciplesisatemptationfew(ifany)canresist.1Withoutdeepculturalconstraintsagainst it, sex scandals go with the occupation of guru because of itsemotional isolation and eventual boredom. Disciples are just there toserveandamusetheguruwho,afterall,givesthemsomuch.Theguru’stemptation isexacerbatedbythedeepconditioning inmanywomentobeattractedtomeninpower.Below are some of themore extreme examples of sexual abuse that

havebeenexposed:

1. Religious leaders using their exalted position to seduce, pressure, or coerce disciplessexually,someevenatpuberty.Thisiscompoundedbythefactthattheymostusuallypreacheithercelibacyormaritalfidelity.2.Incidentsofrapeandcreating“loveslaves.”3.Usingsexandromanticseductionbyothermemberstoenticepeopletojoin.4. Separationof parents from their children, sometimeswith accompanying child abuseandmolestation.5.Encouragingprostitutiontosupportthegroup.

Openlypromiscuousgurusutilizetheirpowertocreatewhatamountsto a harem for their pleasure. The real motives behind their sexualexcursionsareoftenmaskedbysuchwordsas“teaching”or“honoring”their disciples. One famous guru had a procurer. (This disciple, latersadlydisillusioned,describedherselfashavingbeenhispimp.)Hewouldspecifycertainphysical traits foragivenevening(blond, largebreasts,petite, etc.)and shewould round someoneup forhisnightlypleasure.Whenaskedhow she justified this toherself, she said that at the timeshethoughtofhimasgodlikeandGodcandoanything.Theviewthat“Once enlightened, a person can do anything” also justifies anything.(After all,what good is it to beGod if you can’t dowhat youwant?)

Also,hegavesomuchofhimselfhedeservedwhateverittooktomakehim happy. This ultimate male fantasy apparently did not suffice tomakehimhappy.Hewasnotoriouslyself-destructiveanddiedyoung.Having sexwith one’s discipleswhether secretly or openly is a realbetrayaloftrustbecause:

1. The guru is putting his own needs and pleasures first, which is an exploitation.“Honoring”adisciplewithsexisaformofunabasheddominance—howcanadisciplerefusewhoiscommittedtoserveandobey?2. Rewarding women for their sexuality taps into and reinforces deep lines ofconditioning. Traditionally women’s power has been related to sex. So women,especially the good-looking ones gurus seem to choose, generally have deep patternsthat link their power and self-worth into their sexuality.Gurus, like fathers, are in acontext that gives them enormous power because of their disciples’ needs, trust, anddependency.Onereasonincestisabetrayaloftrustiswhatadaughterneedsfromherfatherisasenseofself-worthnotspecificallylinkedtohersexuality.Sexwithaguruissimilarly incestuousbecauseaguruostensibly functionsasa spiritual father towhomone’s growth is entrusted. Having sex with a parental figure reinforces using sex forpower.Thisisnotwhatyoungwomen(ormen)needfortheirdevelopment.Whentheguru drops them, which eventually he does, feelings of shame and betrayal usuallyresultthatleavedeepscars.3. Sexuality with disciples (whether overt or covert) sets up hierarchies of preferencewheredisciplescompeteforstatusthroughwhoisattractingthegurumore.Ifcovert,italsocreatesliesandsecrecyamongdisciples.

Psychotherapists face a similar context of power, trust, anddependency,thoughnotasabsolute.They,too,operateasparentalandauthority figures, both of which are easy to use to stimulate eroticfeelings in a vulnerable client. Professional ethics aside, althoughtheoreticallyitmaynotbeimpossibleforatherapisttodevelopaviableintimate sexual relationshipwith a client, the probability of betrayingthe same kind of trust is great. This is especially true if the therapisttreatstheliaisoncasually,orifthesexispresentedaspartofthetherapydonefortheclient’sgood.Gurus who preach celibacy while secretly engaging in sexualitypresentsexasanesotericinitiationritualoradvancedspiritualexercisethat must be kept hidden. This makes the disciple feel special whilecolludinginanenormouslieandmanipulationthathassevereemotionalrepercussions.The implications of a spiritual teacher lying about sex are oftendeflectedbyfocusingonthesexinsteadofthelying.Heresomepeople

actuallyfeelgoodabouttheguru’sbehaviorinthatitvalidatesforthemthatthere’snothingwrongwithsexafterall.Wehavealsoheardpeoplesaytheyweregladthathe“gotsome.”Lyingaboutsexissorampantineveryculturethatstructureswhatissexuallypermitteditiscommonplacetobeinuredtoitandacceptsuchlyingasagiven,orapeccadillo.Butitisthelie,notthesex,that’sthereal issue. The lie indicates the guru’s entire persona is a lie, that hisimageasselflessandbeingbeyondegoisacoredeception.Manythinkthatthoughaguruliesabouthispersonalbehavior,hismessageisstillessentiallytrue.Lyinghereaselsewhereisdonetocoverupself-interest.Iftheguru’smessageisthatpuritywithoutself-interestistheultimateachievement,not only did he not achieve it, but he does not even know if it isachievable. If being self-centered is an unavoidable aspect of beinghuman, then any ideology that denies this will necessarily corrupt itspromotersandbelievers.Thiswhyimagesofpuritycorrupt.

SpiritualHedonismandTantra

Cross-fertilizationbetweenEastandWesthasproducedastrangehybrid—anewbreedof guruwhocombineshedonismwithdetachment.Therationaletakesthisform:Detachmentfromdesireisstillpresentedasthekeytospiritualprogress,but thequickestpathtothis issaidtobenotthrough asceticism, but rather by experiencing all desires. Theseparticular gurus depict what they are doing as modernizing ancientesoteric methodologies (sometimes referred to as “tantric”) thatattempted to bring self-realization through ritualistically breakingtaboos. In the name of freeing people from their limitations and“hangups,” thispath ispresentedas the fastest track for contemporaryWesterners to achieve spiritual goals, without undo austerity. Theintoxicating message is that “You can have it all”—live out hiddendesiresandfantasies,experienceanypleasure,breaktaboosaroundsex—andbespiritualbesides.Theassumptionisthatifonehasorcultivatesthe right attitude (detachment), then “Anything goes.” This seductive,seeminglyliberatingstanceoftheyou-can-have-it-allgurushasattractedmanyhighlyintelligent,experimentalpeople.Mostpeople’sdeepestinhibitionsrevolvearoundsexuality,aggression,

and violence because it is here that the deepest taboos lie. One guruutilized “workshops” where various expressions of sex, rage, andintimidation were used to break through people’s boundaries. Boneswerebrokenandgroup,impersonal,andevenforcedsexoccurred.Thisisindeedafasttracktobreakingdownpersonality.Bytellingpeoplethiswas a path to liberation, deep taboos could be broken without initialguilt. This brings not only powerful feelings as energy is released, butalso the experience of a particular kind of freedom—freedom fromrepression.Dramaticshiftsofidentitycoupledwithintenseemotionsareeasy to interpret as profound breakthroughs. Although breaking downpersonalityinthisfashioncanseemlikeabreakthrough,itcontainsaninherenthiddentrap:It istheauthorityoftheguruandhisphilosophythat gives permission to “act out.” Thus only through accepting theguru’svaluesandworldviewcan thehurtfulaspectsof suchactionsbe

ignoredandcondoned.Havingbeen strippedof their values, thesenewly “liberated”peopleareinafragilestateuntilnewvaluesandanewsenseofidentitycanbeintegrated.Having “emptied” them, it’s easy for the guru to step in atthis crucialmomentandputhispersona, values, and ideologyat theircenter.Sothefollowers’newidentityformsaroundsurrendertohim,afatherfigure,theonetheynowtrustaboveallothers—eventhemselves—becausehesupposedlyliberatedtheminbestowingthisgreatsenseoffreedom. This kind of freedom is the real illusion. Here direction andpermission from an authority, combined with group pressure, movedmany to act out inways theywerenot capable of integratingwithoutacceptingtheguruastheultimatesourceoftruth.Whatdidnotchangeis the underlying authoritarian personality structure, which was, ifanything,reinforced.Most often those who became involved in such groups could notconceive of themselves as subject to authoritarianmanipulation. Theysaw themselves rather as true spiritual adventurers, unafraid to pushagainsttheboundariesofconvention.Forthem,theveryfactthattheywerecapableofgoingbeyondsocialconstraintswasasignofliberation.(They were also told this by the guru.) That many discontented andinnovative people were unwittingly seduced into submission andconformity (visible only to others) indicates the depth of people’ssusceptibilitytoauthoritariancontrol.Torebelagainstoneauthority(society)byacceptinganother(aleaderwhogivespermissiontorebel)merelyshiftsallegiance,whilegivingtheillusion of liberation. There are different ways of unleashing therepressedinoneself.Surrenderingtoaguruwhofacilitatesthisisoneofthem. However, this is very risky. Here these repressed aspects arehighly manipulable because their allowability is dependent uponpermission from an authority. The authority then ultimately defineswhatispermissible.Thisishowpeoplecancometolie,steal,andevenkillforthegloryofGod,ortheguru.Bringing up repressed desires can be useful in a context that fostersintegration.Theguru/disciplerelationshipisnotsuchacontextbecauseit does not allow people to integrate their own experiences. Rather anewidentity, thatofdisciple, isgivenasthemeansfor integration.Anidentitythatisdependentontheauthorityofanotherisnotonlyfragile,

but it is not a truly deep inner restructuring. The content may lookdifferent,whichincludestakingonadifferentworldviewandvalues(theguru’s).However, the deepest structures of personality, especially howthe person integrates experience and looks for validation, remain notonly unchanged, but are often strengthened by this essentiallyauthoritarianrelationship.The contents of a personality (beliefs, values, a worldview), thoughresistant, change farmore easily than the underlying form or context,which in many is unconsciously authoritarian. This is not surprisinggiven that so much of culture is transmitted as a given, not to bequestioned, meaning that our heritage, too, is unconsciouslyauthoritarian.2Seeminglydramaticshiftsthatinvolveswitchingquicklyfromone authoritarian system to another are not that difficult. (ManydisillusionedMarxistsshiftedtheirutopianhopestothespiritualworld.)Utilizing sex (or violence) to push limits is indeed a quick way tounderminepeople’sidentityandmovethem,buttowhere?Weconsiderthistrulyunethical,notonlybecauseitfailstotakeintoaccounthowithurts others, butbecause theveryquickness of it leavespeople awashand subject to easy manipulation. This is but another example of thegreat myth that an external authority can be the source of innerfreedom.3Extremes in emotionally disconnected sex also disconnect the desirefor closeness with another, especially when intimacy is pejorativelylabeled“attachment.”Thismakes iteasy for thegurutobethecentralemotional bond. As a result, many disciples gradually give lessimportancetosex,someevendriftingintocelibacy.Theytakethisasasignof theirspiritualprogress.Forafterall, theyhadtriedsextotheirheart’s content and seemed to have outgrown it, evolving into asupposedly more spiritual detachment—precisely as predicted andpromised.Notcoincidentally,thisalsoincreasedtheirfaithintheguru’swisdom and made them more available to work harder on whateveragenda theguruprescribed.Thisanswers the riddleofhowpromotingdetached promiscuity eventually turns dedicated hedonists intodedicatedworkers.Fostering promiscuity, impersonal sex, and interchangeable sexualpartnersaccomplishes thesameagendaascelibacy. It trivializessexualattractionandunderminescoupling.Casual,disconnected,modular sex

eventually leaves people satiated, jaded, and often hurt. They becomefearful of forming deep relationships,which fits neatly into the guru’sneedtohavedisciplesdetachedfromeverythingbuthim.Throughoutallthissexualmanipulation,theunderlyingauthoritarian

personality structure not only remains intact and unconscious, but isgreatly buttressed. For now it’s not just messages implanted in one’smind longago that impose “shoulds” and internal control; it’s a livingauthority figurewhowieldstheabsolutepowerofactivemindcontrol.This includes the power to make people who are being callouslymanipulatedbelievetheyarefreerthaneveryoneelse.1This chapter focuses onmale gurus, as all the sex scandalswe are aware of involvemale

spiritualleaders.Thereareanumberofreasonsforthisthatarebeyondthescopeofthischaptertoexamine,amongthem:womenbeingturnedontopowerfulmeneroticizesthemaleteacherrole;casualsexislesssociallyacceptableinwomen;andwomeninpoweringeneralhavetobemoreimpeccable.2Thesectionon“TheRootsofAuthoritarianism”inControldescribesthisindepth.3See“WhoIsinControl?TheAuthoritarianRootsofAddiction”foranin-depthanalysisofthe

dynamicsofauthoritarianpsychology.

BGurus,Psychotherapy,andtheUnconscious

oththeEastandtheWesthavelongtraditionsvaluinganinternaljourneytoself-awareness.Easternreligionhasdevelopeddifferent

methodologies and meditations aimed at leading people to self-realizationorselfless-realization. In theWest,Socrateschampionedtheideathatinordertoknowanythingonemustfirst“knowthyself.”Thequestioniswhatisthenatureofthisselfthatoneistoknow,realize,ortranscend?The prevalent idea in the East is that the self is either a limited

structure to be transcended (Hinduism) or a false construction to betranscended (Buddhism). Since for Hinduism and Buddhism it is thehuman mind that constructs notions of limited or false identity, theirpracticesarelargelyaimedatreversingthis.Bothpromotetheideathattheultimateachievementisanawarenessthatistotallyselfless,withthecorollarythemoreselflessthebetter.Consequently,theEast’sinterestinthemachinationsof theselforego isnotanunbiasedexploration,buthas an agenda to reduce or eliminate the self’s influence in order toachieveselflessnessorego-loss.Sophisticated thinkers within Buddhism were (and are) aware that

unconscious elements exist in the mind. But their interest in theunconsciousiscloakedinanideologythatbelievesitisnotonlypossibletobecome totally selfless, but oncehavingdone so, one is also totallyconscious and no longer moved by unconscious factors. If there wereeven the possibility that a totally realized being had an unconscious,how could anyone (including the realized one) be certain that allmotivesandactionswerepureandselfless?Whetheritispossibletobecomeorbetotallyegolessorselflesscanbe

debated. Buddhism states that it is possible; our position is that theselfless and self-centered, altruism and egoism, are embedded in eachotherandessentiallyinseparable.Thisdoesnotmeanthataltruisticactsareallreducibletohiddenegoism,butrathertheyaretwopolesofan

interwovenprocessthatcanonlybedefinedinrelationtotheother.Wesee self-centeredness as an inescapable element in existence. If givinggavenothinginreturn,therewouldevenbefarlessofitthanthereis.Those who insist absolute selflessness is obtainable can always saythat anyone who has not obtained it cannot know for sure it isn’tobtainable;and theycanalwaysdeflectotherpointsofviewbysayingthey are limited by ego. Similarly, we can always say that thosewhothink they have reached a permanent egoless state are deludingthemselves,andpointtowhatseemstousobviousmanifestationsofego.Thoughthisdebate isnotresolvable, itdoesserveto illuminatewhyanywhoclaimtotalselflessnessmustalsoclaimbeingtotallyconscious.Many gurus and spiritual authorities negate, make light of, or evenridiculetheuseandvalueofWesternpsychotherapybecauseitsconceptsof the unconscious undermine their authority and power. Toacknowledgethatunconsciousfactorsmaybeoperativeinoneselfmeansthatonecannotbetotallysureoneisselfless.What we call the unconscious is not only the repository of earlytraumas, forgotten memories, genetic proclivities, and perhaps evenprimitive,archaic,andarchetypalstructures.Itisalsobeingcontinuallycreatedbyselectiveprocessesthatfilterthewayinformationiskeptout,taken in, and also expressed to others.Onemay speak perfect Englishand know when mistakes are made without consciously knowing therulesofEnglishgrammar.Yetitistheseunconsciousrulesthatstructurehow one speaks and filter what one hears. All perception involves aselective processwhereby in any given instant one is focusing on thisratherthanthat.Theselectionofattention,thatis,whyone’sattentionishereratherthanthere,isusuallynotconscious.In our view, one of the most powerful unconscious selective filtersinvolves keeping out, denying, or repressing that which can causediscomfort; themore extreme the discomfort, themore likely filteringwill occur. An area of very extreme discomfort for most people isanything thatdoesnotmatch their ideals ofhow tobe andbasic self-conceptions ofwho they are. It is difficult even towant to see thingsabout oneself that one doesn’t like. Self-identity—who and what onethinksone is—isapillarofpersonality.Thehumanmind is an image-builder thatuses thepresent toattempt tocreate the futureoutof thepast. The selective process that lets things in that verify self-images

whilekeepingoutwhatunderminesthemisitselfunconscious.Actually,self-imagesthemselvesarefilteringsystemsthatonlyworkwellifoneisnotawarefilteringisgoingon.Usually what is repressed or filtered out aremotives and behaviorsthat do not match one’s ideals. If one has values against controllingothers,thenonewilltranslatethewaysoneexercisescontrol(ortriesto)intorights,duties,orfosteringvirtuefortheother’sowngood.Theseallinvolve moral justifications for control. This means control is oftendisguised, especially inpersonal relationships. Inany relationship, it isdangerous to ignore power and control. This is especially so in theguru/disciple relationship where ideals of selflessness makeauthoritarianmanipulationeasybymaskingthem.1Western psychology has various theories about the nature andworkings of the unconscious, each emphasizing the importance ofdifferentelements:sex,power,archetypes,security,etc.Theyallagreeinattributing significant unconsciousmotivations towhy people dowhattheydo.Leavingasidewhichtheoryisrightormoreright,theimportantquestion here is: Does using the concept of the unconscious betterexplain human behavior; and if it does, can anyone ever know withcertaintythatinanygivenmomenttherearenounconsciousfactorsatplay?Webelieveeveryself-examiningpersonhas,atonetimeorother,realizedthattheyaremoreconsciousthantheywere,whichmeanstheywere less conscious previously. This is enough to validate someconception of unconsciousness. We also think that because theunconscious is unconscious, assuming that one is beyond its reach canonlymakeonelessalerttoitspower.Spiritual authorities who present themselves as unchallengeablepurveyors of the truth undermine Western frameworks of theunconsciousbecausetheycannotacknowledgethatthey,too,maybeinits sway. Neither do they want their disciples to question too deeplytheirownmotives.Toattract followers,gurusmustpresent themselvesasenlightened(withoutego),whichincludesnothavinganunconscious.There is good reason for this: To surrender totally to another it isessential tobelieve that the recipientof such trust isnotmotivatedbyself-interest. Being egoless is the onlyway self-interest could not be amotivating factor. The possibility of unconscious elements in the guruwould mean there could be unacknowledged or secret self-interest. It

wouldbemostdifficulttohaveabsolutefaithinthepronouncementsofateacheronesuspectedofhavingunconsciousmotivations.Alargelyunconsciousprocessthatcanoccurinanycontextwhereone

person helps another is called transference. What this refers to is thetransferring, projecting, or cathecting of an old and unresolvedemotional configuration onto a person who, because of eitherpersonalityorposition,caneasily igniteandtakeontheseemotionallycharged images. For example, longings for being taken care of,unconditional love, and approval are readily transferred to anyonepeoplebelievecanhelpthembecomemorefulfilledorrealized.Counter-transferenceoccurswhentheteacher,therapist,orhelperunconsciouslybuysintothetransferenceofothers.Thehelpingstance“Iknowwhat’sbest for you” maximizes both transference and counter-transference.Goodtherapistsknowtheirclientstransferunresolvedemotionalissues,especially related to parents and authority, to them. Gurus as well astherapists naturally take on such parental projections because of thenature of their role as helpers. A primary goal in therapy is to freeclients from their need to transfer unresolved issues onto others. Thisneed makes people particularly susceptible to authoritarian control.Good therapists aim at being very conscious of how they deal withtransference.Because of the nature of the relationship which demands total

surrender, gurus do exactly the opposite. They cultivate and rewardtransference, foraparental typeofauthority isat theverycoreof theguru’spoweroverdisciples.Thepowertoname,arrangemarriages,anddictate duties and behavior are ultimates in parental authority,especially in traditional societies like the East. To give someone thepowertonameormarryyouistoprofoundlyaccepttheirparentalroleindefiningwhoyouare.Theostensiblemotivationbehindthishastodowithanattempttobreakthetiesofthepastsothepersoncanbecome“new.”Adeeperreasonisthatthisaidstheguruinbecomingthecenteroftheperson’semotionallife,whichfacilitatessurrender.Turning one’s back to all of the past is not so easily done. What

remains are predilections and patterns around authority, which aretransferredtothenewauthority.Thereisthehopethattheguruwillbethe perfect or idealized parent one never had—a veritable fount ofunconditional love. But this so-called unconditional love is conditional

uponsurrenderingtotheguruandacceptinghisauthority.Transferencethat is reinforcedsuchthat itbecomesawayof lifeensures theclient,student,ordisciplewillremainfundamentallychildish.2Renunciate ideals of selflessness increase unconsciousness byrepressinganddisguising self-centeredmotives.TheEast’s glorificationof surrender, detachment, and selflessness hides the unconsciousattachmentsandcollusionsatthecoreoftheguru/disciplerelationship.Disciples are attached to having their idealized projections fulfilled bytheguru; theguru isattached to thepower that fulfilling thembrings.When disciples become gurus, they are ill-prepared to deal with theirnew power other than by doingwhat their guru did. Dealing awarelywithpowerinvolvesguardingagainstitscorruptions,insteadofdenyingthatoneiscorruptible.Thestandardsofpuritynecessaryfortheroleofgurumust bring unconscious repression and filteringmechanisms thatensuredeceitandhypocrisyaroundself-interest.3Anyonewhodenieshavinganunconsciousstopsanessentialprocessof awarenesswhich involves being very alert to theworkings of one’sownfilteringmechanisms.Thisdenialcanonlyincreasethepoweroftheunconscious.Becausea spiritual authority cannot competewell fromaposition of fallibility, gurus are caught on the horns of a dilemma: bydenying the unconscious they become more unconscious; but if theyacknowledge its possibility in themselves, they can no longer beinfallible.1“Love and Control: The Conditions UnderlyingUnconditional Love” discusses in depth theproblematicramificationsofselflessidealsonrelationships.2See“LoveandControl.”3See“TheTrapsofBeingaGuru.”

TTheTrapsofBeingaGuru

hepersonmostatriskofbeingstrangledbytheimagesdemandedbytheroleofguruistheguru.Thisincludesthegreatdangerof

emotional isolation. The literature of Eastern spirituality is rife withwarningsabout thedangersof the spiritualpath.There isgood reasonfor this. Ironically, contributing to these dangers is the common andmistakennotionthatthefurtheralong“thepath”onegets,thelessoneislikelytosuccumbtotemptations—untiloneisfullyrealized,atwhichpoint one is no longer subject to the hazards of self-delusion. But inactuality the reverse is more often true, as the temptations get moreinsidious,powerful,andhardertoresist.Seeingmoredeeplycontainsnoguarantee against one’s mind becoming concomitantly more clever atfoolingitself.Moreover,whenanyoneistreatedasan“arrived”humanbeing, the potential for self-delusion is far greater than in any othercontext.Attheheartoftheultimatetrapisbuildingandbecomingattachedto

animageofoneselfashavingarrivedatastatewhereself-delusionisnolongerpossible.Thisisthemosttreacherousformofself-delusionandaveritable breeding ground of hypocrisy and deception. It creates afeedback-proof system where the guru always needs to be right andcannotbeopentobeingshownwrong—whichiswherelearningcomesfrom.1Whenpeopleportraythemselvesasbeyondillusion—andthereforeno

longer subject to ego, mistakes, subjectivities, the unconscious, orcreatingdelusionalsystemsthatareself-aggrandizing—what isactuallybeing claimed? Is it that they have never been deluded?Or that theyaren’t deluding themselves now? Or that they can never be deludedagain?Fortheclaimoffreedomfromself-delusiontohaveanyforce,itmustalsobeaclaimaboutthefuture.Whowouldgotoaguruwhosaid,“I’mfreeofself-delusionnow,butmightnotbetomorrow”?Nomatterhow much evidence casts doubt on this stance of unchallengeablecertainty,itisalwayspossibletomaintainthattheplaceofsuchexaltedknowledgeisnotsubjecttotheproofsandjudgmentsofordinarypeople.

But whether being beyond self-delusion is possible or not, presentingoneself to others in this fashion sets up an inevitable pattern ofinteraction. If apersonbelievesanother is so realized, it automaticallycreatesnotonlyaweandworship,butthebeliefthatthisperson“knowsbetter.” Why would even the most realized of beings want people tobecome reliant on his wisdom instead of their own?Whether anyoneactuallyachievesthisstatecanbedebated;whatoughttobeobvioustousisthatthismodeisauthoritarian.Toprojectthatonewillbeacertainwayinthefutureistobuildanimageofoneselfthathaswithinitthewantandneedtobelieve(orforotherstobelieve)onewillinfactbethatway.Thisimageoftheguruasbeyondself-delusioncutsoffrealawarenessinbothgurusanddisciples.Acrucialelementinbeingself-awareinvolvesbeingalerttowhenoneis“puttingoneselfon”—meaning,tellingoneselfwhatonewantstohear.Let’s suppose a person has touched into something that might becalled a basic or universal reality (or at least a level of understandingdeeper thanpreviously experienced).Doing so could have cut throughprevious illusions and self-delusions. In the moment, one’s clarity canfeelsopowerfulthatitisnothardtobelieveonewillneverbedeludedagain(atleastnotinthesameway).Butanyprojectionofoneself intothe future necessarily comes from images created out of the past; themore absolute they are, the more one ignores what contradicts them.Thisisoneofthegreatestoccupationalhazardsofbeingaguru.There is a tendencywithin the humanmind to construct a universewithitselfatthecenter.Thisisoneplacesubjectivitycomesfrom.Sanityis the realization thatone isnotalone indoing this. Sanity is also thecapacitytochangethroughbeingopentofeedback,tonewinformation.The idea thatanyonemindhasacorneron the truthcreates isolationthat is extraordinary. This easily leads to deterioration of physical ormentalhealth.So,anothergreatdangerforgurusisemotionalisolation.Emotionalconnectioniscertainlynecessaryformentalhealth,andatleastbeneficial inmaintainingphysicalhealth.Psychosomaticmedicinehas found that many physical and psychological problems have theirroots in alienation. The guru offers others an escape from alienationthroughthequickbondingthatbecomingamemberofhisgroupbrings,but ironically thiseventuallycausesextremealienation inhim. It isnowonderthenthatgurusdisplayaspectrumofself-destructivebehaviors

fromdrunkenness toulcers.This isnotbecause theyare takingon thekarma of their disciples or of the world (a prevalent rationalization).Rather,theyareinvolvedintheveryhumanactivityofsomatizingtheirconflicts. One guru even alienated himself to the extent that he wasliterally allergic to people. Everyone had to go through extremecleansingmeasuresinordertobeallowedinhispresence.Beinga“knower,”asopposedtoaseeker,ispartofbeingaguru.Thisimpliesanessentialdivisionbetween theguruandothers.Theguru ineffect says, “I’m here, and you’re there; and not only can I help youmove fromhere to there,but that’swhat I’mhere for.”Beingdifferent(or rather,beingperceivedasdifferent) is the foundationof theguru’sdominance. Relations of dominance and submission often containextreme emotions. But if dominance and submission are the essentialingredientsintheglueholdingthebondtogether,theconnectionisnotreallypersonal.Gurusanddisciplesneedeachother,butasroles,notasindividuals,whichmakesrealhumanconnectionalmost impossible.Sogurusmustcreateotherwaysofturningthemselvesonbesidesintimacy,the most usual ones being adulation, material wealth, impersonalsexuality,andpower.Norcangurushaveanyrealconnectionwithothersupposed“super-humans”(othergurus)becauseoftheinherentcompetitionamongthem.Years ago, when we first became interested in gurus and Easternconcepts such as enlightenment, it initially seemed an oddity that allthese supposedly enlightened beings did not seek out each other’scompany. With each other they presumably could find deep and realunderstanding,andrespitefromalwayshavingtodealwithmindsatalowerlevel.Butsincedisciplesviewtheirguruasavehiclefortheirownsalvation, they must believe that he can do the best for them.Consequently, themeeting of gurus,when it occurs (it rarely does), isalwaysladenwithheavymeaning,asthediscipleswatchverycarefullyto see who comes out best. Even the simplest acts (who goes to seewhom) have implications of dominance. The fact is that gurus do not“hang out” together because the structure of the role makes it nighimpossible.Thusevenintimacywithpeersisdeniedthem.

NarcissismandAdulation

Apersonmaytouchintoasenseofconnectednessthatfeelseternal,andin that moment, be one with it. This experience, for lack of a betterword,iscalledmystical,andasisattestedbythosewhohavehadit,itcannotbecapturedbywords.This,however,doesnot stop thehumanmindfromattemptingtoplacethememoryof it intosomeframework.Such experiences that “blow people’s minds” (meaning temporarilyshatter their boundaries and structures of integration) do not reallycreate a blank slate. Instead they are integrated into some mentalstructure. Either one has a framework that can handle them, or onelooks for a framework that can. The East has putmore attention intocreatingworldviewsthattakemysticalexperiencesintoaccount.2Attemptingtocommunicatethewonderofsuchexperiencestoothers

isnaturalandunderstandable.Theproblemisthatotherswhohavenothad similarexperiencesareprone togive suchapersondeferenceandspecialtreatment.Itisverydifficultnottoenjoythis,andthussubtlytoreinforcewhateverimagesothershaveofone’sspecialness—particularlysinceitmakespeoplemoreapttolisten.Guruscanjustifythisbysayingtheyareusingadulationasa tool tohelppeople learn,grow,and freethemselves.Unfortunately, theusual structure inwhichworshipoccursinvolves putting on a pedestal someonewho appears to be essentiallydifferentfromandsuperiortooneself.Worshipcreatesan“Other,”andto sustain suchworship, thegurumust continually reinforce imagesofhisdifferenceandsuperiority.Given that adulation is built into the guru/disciple relationship,

anothertrapforgurusisnarcissism.Thepopulardefinitionofnarcissismis being overly enamored with oneself. The psychoanalytic definitioninvolvesdevelopmenthavingbeenarrestedattheinfantilestageofauto-eroticism.Whatthisboilsdowntoisbeingone’sownprimarysexobject.Thisviewusuallyseesnarcissismasapathologyconstructedprimarilyininfancy.Rather than placing the sole cause of narcissism in the distant past,

ourconceptionviewsitasanamplificationofanormalhumantendency

tobeturnedonwhensomeoneisturnedontoyou.This,ofcourse,cananddoeshappentoallofus.Itonlybecomespathologicalwhenitisthesoleorprimarywayone“getsoff.”Thismeansoneonlyreallyfeelsalivewhenoneisthecenterofanother’sattention.Narcissistsareoftenverycharismatic, as their power is derived from attracting. Intelligent onesareveryseductiveandskilledatcaptivatingothers.Theirantennaearealways alert for when people are interested in or turned on to them.When what is most important is being the center of importance forothers, adoring admirers become fairly interchangeable. Extremenarcissists need to be adored but cannot adore; they do not reallyexperiencedeeppassion.Narcissismcreatesapiggybackformofpassion,as it feedsoffothers’passionforoneself.Consequently,nomatterhowmuchadulationnarcissistsreceive,itisneverenough;theyalwaysneedmore.Most people enjoy feeling special. One may be uncomfortable withthisordislikeit,butthat’sadifferentissue.Adulation,theultimateformofspecialtreatment,hasanaddictivequalitydifficulttoresist.Beingthefocus of such attention would activate the excitation levels of anysentientbeingonthereceivingendof it.Whether foraguruorarockstar,thiscanbeamorepowerfulexperiencethanthestrongestdrug.Itisalsooneofthegreatseductionsofpower.Successful gurus, rock stars, charismatic leaders of any sort,experience the intensity of adulation amplified beyond most people’sken.Thiscanmakeordinaryrelationshipspalebycomparison.Beingtherecipientofsuchadulationanddevotion isexceedinglyaddictive.Hereaddictionisusedinitsloosesensetomeanmechanicallyneedinganon-going“fix”ofadulation towhere itbecomes thecentral focusofone’slife.Adulationhaspowerfulemotionsforthesenderaswell,andcanbeeasilymistakenforlove.Itislikewiseaddictingforthesender,asitisaneasyroutetofeelingsofpassion.Sinceadulationistotallyafunctionofimage, should the images crack, adulation disappears, demonstratingthatitisessentiallyemptyofrealcare.3Psychoanalytic theory would say that adulation is the emotionalexperience a narcissist most craves. What better profession for anarcissistthanbeingaguru?Narcissistsmaybecomegurusbecausetheycrave adulation; butwe believe it possible that extreme adulation canalso move people into narcissism. We do not doubt that one’s past

history can contribute to relying on narcissism as a major relationalmode. This would include being born with extreme beauty. And ofcourse,peoplecouldbemorepronetonarcissismduetochildhoodlacks.But intense and continuing adulation alone canbring aboutnarcissismbecause it is addictive, offering easy access to power. For a guru,adulation and power are intricately connected since the disciples’surrender is the ultimate source of his power, and adulation is theprerequisiteforsurrender.Aguruismadetofeelheisthecenteroftheuniverse by his disciples. It is difficult to not be “in love” with thatimageofoneself.

DeceitandCorruption

Some seem to thrive in the role of spiritual authority. After all, to bemore interested in power and position than truth and growth is to becongruentwiththeactual(ratherthanprofessed)valuesofmuchoftheworldand its institutions.Another irony is that althoughguruspreachdetachment, and seekers look to them to learn how to be unattached,gurus become totally attached to the power and privileges of theirelevated position. But since their power requires appearing the mostnon-attached and selfless, this automatically makes gurus eitherunconsciouslyorconsciouslydeceitful.If the guru’s message of being personally free of all self-interest is

false,isitknowinglyfalse?Itisofcoursepossibleforthegurutobelieveithimself,especiallybecausethegururoleisbothdetachedandopulent.Thus it iseasytobelieveonereallydoesn’tneedanythingoranybody.(Belief and self-interest usually go hand-in-hand.) Also, people whodissembleandlieinordertomakeothersbelieveinthemoftenbelievethis is justified because it is ultimately for everyone’s good—onlycoincidentallyincludingtheirown.This brings up another major danger of being a spiritual authority.

There is nothing within the role to guard against the corruptions ofpower,becausetheverynotionofcorruptionistaboo.Bydenyingthatself-interestisorcanbeoperativeinaguru,thereisnowaytomitigateagainstitseffects.Usingloftyidealstomaskself-interestiscommon,butwhenthis ismeldedto imagesofpurity,corruption isguaranteed.Themyriad scandals around sex, money, and power that have tainted somanygurusarenotsurprising,giventhestructuralcorruptibilityoftherole. Inpolitical realms,where the corrupting tendencies of power arelegend,weareoftenwarnedthatconstantvigilanceisneededtoensurefreedom. Authoritarian ways of relating undermine vigilance so thatbothsideshaveunconsciousvestedinterestsintheunquestionedpoweroftheleader.Inspiritualrealms,thepowerissoabsolutethatitcanleadtoextremeexcesses.Therearefew,ifany,relationshipswherethepossibilitiesofpersonal

powermatchtheguru’s.Ifhumanbeingsbelievealeadercansavethem,theywillobeyandfollowhimanywhere;theyarecapableoffollowingany order—including killing others and even themselves.Disciples cananddobecomedisillusionedwithaguru.Itisfarmoredifficultforgurusto become disillusioned with themselves. They can always rationalizeanything theydo,nomatterhowmistakenor even sleazy, and findatleastafewpeoplewillingtosupportandidolizethem.Sothegururolemakes itextremelydifficult toescape the trapsofpower—theultimatetrapbeingthatintheend,guruslosetheirhumanity.1See“Gurus,Psychotherapy,andtheUnconscious”ononeofthegreatestself-delusions:thatonceonebecomesfullyconscious,thenonenolongerhasorismovedbytheunconscious.2See“Oneness,Enlightenment,andtheMysticalExperience.”3“Who Is in Control? The Authoritarian Roots of Addiction” presents a different model ofaddiction,goingintoitsdynamicsindepth.

JJimJonesandtheJonestownMassSuicide

imJones,thecultleaderofthePeople’sTemple,shockedtheworldbykillinghimselfandCongressionalinvestigators.Whatwasmost

disturbing is that he somehow convinced hundreds of his followers tokill themselves and others. In total 914 persons died, including morethan216childrenwhowerepoisonedfirstbytheoldermembers.Mostpeoplewerereputedtohavewillinglydrunkpoisonwithoutneedingtobecoerced.Ina reviewbyJimMillerof fourbooksaboutJimJones (Newsweek,

June1,1981),Joneswasquotedashavingsaidthefollowing:

1.“EversinceasachildIsawadogdie,Iwantedtokillmyself.”2. “If you can’t understand the willingness to die … you will never understand theintegrity,honesty,andbraveryofthePeople’sTemple.”3.“Allyouwhoareinloveareintrouble.”4.“Iwasthemasterofrevolutionarysex,abletocopulatefifteentimesaday,butnowallIwantistheorgasmofthegrave.”1

These four statements seemed to have a strange kind of internalconsistency and aroused our curiosity. We asked, where in the worlddoes one have to be emotionally andmentally to say such things andreally believe them? And why were people willing to follow such aleader,eventodeath?TheJonestowneventsshockedanddeeplydisturbedmanypeople—a

disturbancethatwentbeyondtheirobvioussordidness.ItwasasifJimJones,asasymbol,touchedadarkplaceinourcollectivepsyche.Thereis,perhaps,alessontobegleanedfromsomanypeopledenyinglifeinthatultimateway.SothefollowingisanattempttoconstructapossiblepsychologicalfieldoutofwhichJones’fourquotesandtheactualeventssurrounding the People’s Temple become understandable, making acertainkindofsense—twistedthoughitbe.

WhenasachildJonesfirstconfrontedtherealityofdeath,coulditbethathefeltultimatelybetrayedbyGodortheuniverse?Ifso,lifeforhimbecameasham,alie,andahypocrisyofcosmicdimensions.Forif lifeultimatelyleadstodeath—itstotalnegation—whatgoodisitandwhatmeaningcanitpossiblyhave?Twointerwovenuniversalprocessesarebuildup,thecreationofforms,andbreakdown,theirdissolution.Buildupandbreakdownareembeddedineachother.Inordertobreakdown,somethingmusthavebeenbuiltup.But,morethanthat,theprocessitselfofbuildingupandcontinuing(aging)hastheseedsofbreakdownwithinit.Asfarasisknown,everyindividualstructure—whetheragalaxy,solarsystem,orperson—forms,endures, and dissolves. Every self-reflecting person at some time facesintegratingaging,decay,anddeath.Thetwobasicwaysofdoingsoarebydenying theirultimate realityvia systems thatpropose immortality,orbyfindingawaytoloveandappreciatethelifeoneisgivenwithoutthe certainty of endless continuance.We suspect Joneswas able to doneither.Ifdeathanddecayareallonefocuseson,thisknowledgecansapalljoy from life, casting a shadow that makes everything seeminconsequential andmeaningless. Jones perhaps saw thatmost peopleplaced their ultimate meaning on the hope of immortality, which helooked upon as self-delusion. Here his second quote equating honestyandbraverywiththewillingnesstodiebecomesunderstandable.It is possible that on seeing a dog die, this early confrontationwithdeathproducedinJonesaloathingandfearofitsogreatthattheonlyway he could survive was to try to conquer that fear through “awillingnesstodie.”Andthewayheattemptedtodothiswastoconvincehimselfhecouldemotionallywelcomedeathandevenworship it. It istrue that to be caught in fear inhibits freedom; andmuch fear has itsrootsinthefearofdeath.Thereareonlythreewayspeoplehandlethisfear:bydenyingit,acceptingit,orembracingit.Eachwayhasitsownstructureandinnerdynamic.Jones chose to embrace death, a path few people overtly take butwhich hasmuch historical precedence in the worship of our so-calleddark side. Satanism involves theworship of the forbidden. The powerandcharisma itoffersarederived fromworshippingwhatothers fear.2Jonescouldhavebelievedembracingdeath tobe theultimatehonesty

anddeepestmanifestationofcourage. It isherethatJones’ thirdquote(hisadmonitionagainstlove—“Allyouwhoareinloveareintrouble”)becomesunderstandable.Worshipingdeathisdifferentfromacceptingit: trueacceptancedoesnotnegatelife,whileworshippingdeathmust.Thisisbecausewithsuchworship,onemustbeverycarefulnottobecomeattachedtoanyaspectoflife.Lovingothersautomaticallyensnaresoneincaringaboutlife.Forexample,lovingone’schildrenmeans,amongotherthings,notwantingthemtodie.Thuswithloveonecangetcaughtagaininfearingdeath.The stance of protecting oneself against the fear of death through notcaring about life is difficult to maintain. Even before attempting toisolatehisgroup inJonestown, Joneswasknown tobeveryparanoid,sufferingfromavarietyofpersecutionfantasies.Thismeanshedidnottrulyconquer fear throughnegating life.For ifhedid,whatdifferencewouldanyofitmake,includingotherswantinghimdead?That Jones as a cult leader without constraints sexually used andabused his followers is not unique. However, the extreme nature ofpublic abuse and humiliation that often accompanied the sex are butanotherindicationofhowfarpeoplecangoifsurrenderedtoaleader.IfJones’ self-aggrandizingaccountsofhis sexual exploitshaveany truth,thesexualfrenziesmentionedinthefourthquotecouldalsohavebeenacompulsive attempt momentarily to escape the disconnection andfeelings of impotency such a bleak and joyless perspective engenders.Weareall impotentbefore thespecterofdeath.Jones turnedhisbackontheonlyintelligentsolutiontoone’shelplessnessinthefaceofdeath,which is to live life as fully and caringly as possible. Seeking the“orgasmof thegrave” is,ofcourse, seeking the final release.Here isavery concrete example of the Freudian deathwish, the idealization ofthanatos. We cannot but wonder whether many of our historicalatrocities and human shames contain an element of death worship.Inflictingdeathandpainonthe“Other”who“deserves” it is fareasierthandealingwithone’sownpainanddeath.Mostof thepeoplewho joinedJoneswere folkswhohadn’thad toomanygoodfeelings in life.Withthem,Joneswasabletotakehisanti-life stance and parlay it into power. By making the unhappy anddowntrodden totally justified in feeling that life ismisery,decay,pain,etc.,Jonesgavehisfollowersamomentarysenseofspecialness.Outof

all theworld, they alonewere not self-deluded. This allowed them toviewthemselvesasastrangekindofelite—winnersatlast.In the group they doubtless found a sense of specialness, of

connection, and of care for each other that had eluded them all theirlives. The groupwas their family, and Jones their father. (Theywrotehimconfessional“letterstoDad.”)Thegluethatheldthemalltogetherwas submission to Jones and to whatever beliefs he put forth. Not tofollowJonesdownthepathofdeathmeantareturntotheiremptylivesand a negation of the elitist feelings of specialness Jones induced inthem—as long as theywere “his.” In the fifties, popular existentialismequated ultimate freedom with the ability to kill oneself—an escapefromtheintrinsicabsurdityoflife.So,too,didthePeople’sTemple,butunlikeexistentialists,thisbecamethecoreoftheirmeaning.Jonescalledsuicide a revolutionary act. Although some were coerced, most killedthemselvesobedientlywhenorderedto.TheJonestowntragedyisbutonemoreexample,albeitaparticularly

gruesome one, of the inherent risks in surrendering to any authority.Onceanypersontakesonanauthoritarianmantlethatassumesknowingwhat’sbestforothers,thisdelusioninevitablyleadstogreaterdelusions.Joneswould have beenmore consistent had hemerely killed himself.The fact that he needed a larger, more showy stage for his exit is aseeming paradox. That he needed to assert his power and take manywithhimisastatement…buttowhom?Whowouldbelefttomarvelthatcouldmattertohim?Coulditbethebloodydramathatwasplayedout was his desperate, pathological way of reaching for connection,meaning,andevenaperverselyachievedimmortality?ThataJimJonescouldexist, and leadothers tomass suicidewhich

includedkillingchildren,isimportanttoexamine.Thedeepdiscomfortsuch actions bring points to… towhat? Perhapswhat is really beingpointedtoissomethingthatwewouldprefertokeephiddenevenfromourselves.Howmuchdoeachofusholdbackinlifeoutofnotonlythefearofdeath,whichisoftenrepressed,butasinJones’case,thefearofthefearofdeath?Fearingdeathisthoughtprojectingthroughtime,constructinganidea

of not being—not being “me” anymore. It is fearing the unknownandperhapstheunknowable.Fearingthefearofdeath,however,isfearingapsycho-physical state that one can know all toowell, a state that can

become unbearable in its helplessness and anxiety. In this historicalmoment, the human species is facing the possibility of mass, perhapstotal suicide, by destroying the life-support systems of the planet. JimJones’s response to fear, thoughextreme,wasuniquelyhuman.To theextentthateachofuscontainsallthepotentialsofhumanitywithinus,wemustlookdeeplywithinourselveslestourown“deathwish”prevail.1Thispiece is a rational reconstructionbasedon these four statementsmadeby Jones. It isconjecturalanddoesnotpurporttobetheonlypossibleexplanation.2See“SatanismandtheWorshipoftheForbidden:WhyitFeelsGoodtoBeBad.”

COnChannelingDisembodiedAuthorities

hannels, channeled writings, and the spirit entities thatsupposedlyspeakthroughthemarepartofatrendthat includes

giving credence to different kinds of otherworldly, non-material, orother-dimensional, super-human intelligences. These presumed entitiesall function inasimilarway inthat theymakethemselvesmanifestbytalking to or through someone they choose, who then becomes theirchannel.Whytheentitychoosesaparticularpersonremainsmysterious,asistheprocessofchannelingitself.Becomingachannelisalsoanewfrontierofesotericactivity.Anyonewhohearsavoiceinsidethatisnotconsciouslywilled can assume something external is doing the talkingandtherebytakeontheidentityofchannel.Turning to disembodied experts is not a surprising progression. In

recentyears,thegodlikestatureofmanygurusevaporatedinamireofcorruption,deceit,andabuseofpower.Incontrast, incorporealentitiesseemfreeofcorruption,ascorruptionmakeslittlesensewithoutabodytoprofit fromitsresults.Also, thesespiritauthoritiesdonot taketheirfollowersoverinthetotalwaythatgurusdobydemandingtheirprimeemotionalallegiance.Thismakesinvolvementwiththeteachingssafer.Theassumptionthatthespiritandchannelareseparateentitiesmeans

incongruitiesbetween the channel’sbehaviorand the channeledwordsarenot seenas significantor relevant.Achanneledmessagecanneverbe questioned or challenged because of the impurity of messenger.“Spirits”areassumedtobepure,oratleastthepurveyorsofpuretruth,whereastheirvesselsforthistruthare“onlyhuman”anddonotneedtoclaim or manifest infallibility or purity. Thus being a channel forotherworldly wisdom is less dangerous and confining than being itssource, as with gurus. The channel can get drunk even if the “spirit”disapproves, while a guru would at least have to hide or justify thediscrepancybetweenwordsandactions.Thechannel isnotnecessarilyevensupposedtobetheentity’sbeststudentorexemplar,unlikethose

intheguru’sinnercircle.Of course, many are exploring these hermetic realms out of anunderstandable curiosity. Some approach channeling as potentiallyuseful information that emanates from the channel’s unconscious,involvingpossiblysomeformofextra-sensoryperception,oraparticularkindofsensitivityorgiftofinsight.Theyaremoreconcernedwithhowastutetheinformationisthanwiththenatureofitssource,utilizingonlywhatmakessensetothem.Incontrast,regardingachannelasmerelyapassivevehicleenablingasuperior,otherworldlyintelligencetoexpoundmakesitdifficultnottobeswayedbythechannel’sinput.

AssumptionsaboutChanneling

There isnowayultimately toprove toeveryone’s satisfactionwhereagiven voice comes from. So, the most revealing and also resolvablequestions on channeling involvewhat the voice is actually saying; theimplicationsofwhatissaid;andwhetherthevoiceisassumedtohaveadirect line to the truth, making it unchallengeable and thereforeauthoritarian.Whatmainlyinterestsusarewhypeopleconsultchannels,and the assumptions made about the presumed entities and theirchanneledmessages.Somewhocallthemselveschannelsmaybemerelymilking thegullible;butweassume thatmanywhochannelbelieve inwhattheyaredoing.Itisonlythelatterwhointerestus.Thosewhobelieveanexternalintelligenceisthesourceofthevoiceor

writingsmakeatleastsomeofthefollowingassumptions:

1. Being disembodied makes the entity a pure (or purer) voice of cosmic wisdom andspirituality.2.Theentitynotonlyknowsmore,butcanaccessinformationotherwiseinaccessible,oratleastexceedinglydifficulttogetonone’sown.3.Theentitytellsthetruth.4.People’swell-beingistheentity’sbasicinterest.5.Theentityknowswhat’sbestforagivenhumanorhumansingeneral.6. These entities would not be motivated by power or wrongly manipulate those whocometothem.Inshort,theyhavenoself-interest.7.Oneisbetteroffgettingtheinformationthannot.8.Thefactthatmostchannelsputforthasimilarmessageandshareasimilarworldviewissufficientproofthatwhattheysaymustbeforthemostparttrue.

The thread running through these assumptions is that disembodiedentities are reliable, trustworthy, benevolent authoritieswith a deeperunderstanding of the nature of things. Here channeling, like gurus,creates a context of privileged knowledge that essentially cannot bechallenged.Thoughtherapistsarealsoassumedtoknowmore,goodtherapistsare

knowledgeableandcarefularoundtransferenceissues,meaningtheyarealert to thedangersofbecominganunconsciousparentalauthority for

their clients. They also know that even if they see something about aclient they’re fairly sure of, clients are far better off finding it out forthemselves than being told. Channeled “spirits” (or the channelsthemselves) are also subject to transference, as are gurus. Imputing adifferentandhigherorderof existence tobe the sourceof informationmakessuchprojectionsinevitable.1Shouldonegivedisembodiedentitiesanycredenceatall, thedramaand excitement of a supposed spirit entering amortal to reveal deep,hidden truths evokes a seductive, magical aura of seemingly ultimatecosmicportent.Wantingtobelievethatspiritshaveadirectlinetothetruth ties intoadeepyearning for something trulypureone can trust.Whenvaluesofpurityhavebeenimplanted,itbecomesdifficulttotrustoneself as one is never pure enough. So looking for someone orsomething more pure fits neatly into people’s deepest “pure-itanical”conditioning,whichinstillsself-mistrust.2Hearinganinnervoiceorvoicesthatseemtobecomingfromoutsideoneself is neither new nor historically unusual.When the voice urgeddoing something considered bad or hurtful, it was attributed topossession by evil spirits or the devil;when it voiced values of purityandselflessness,thespiritwasassumedtobeamessengerofthesacred.Attributing purity to another realm and to the information thatsupposedlycomesfromitispartoftheage-oldsplitbetweenthesacredandsecularcreatedbyrenunciatereligions.3Channeling is an ancient phenomenon necessary for any revealedreligionwhoseunchallengeabledictateshave tocome fromGod.God’swishes can only be known in three ways: either God has to speakthroughapersonorassumeahumanform,orapersonhas tobecomegodlike (the East’s enlightenment paradigm). Thusmanywritings thatarethefoundationoftraditionalrenunciatereligions,suchastheKoranandmuchoftheOldTestament,wereconsideredtobechanneledfromGod by prophets and holymen. They contain the rules for staying inGod’sgoodgraces.Mostsacredtextsfromallreligionsareconsideredtobechanneled(divinelyrevealed).EasternreligiousworldviewsaremoregenerousthanWesternonesinbestowing infallibility through mastery. It is then not surprising thatmost modern channels espouse a worldview containing elements ofEastern mysticism, usually including the Oneness perspective, with

karma/rebirth presented as a given. Not insignificantly, the alignmentwith Eastern tradition is used as validation. There are other enticingmessages: “If you only knew enough, youwould see you are perfect.”“All limitsareinthemindandcanbetranscended.”Thesetemporarilyempowering beliefs are very seductive. What is channeled largelyaccentuatesthepositive:beauty,transcendingfear,lovingyourself,andintimationsofimmortalitywithinanunlimiteduniverseofplenty.Manychannels,eitherdirectlyorindirectly,putforththeappealingnotionthat“Youcreateyourownreality.”Whatthismeans,oristakentomean,isthat if youdo it right you can create anything; conversely, everythingnegativethatoccursyouhavereallychosen inorder to learnaneededlesson.Tomakethisbeliefwork,atheoryofkarma/rebirthisnecessary,forwithoutpast livesandkarma, itwouldbehardtoexplainwhyone“chose”theparticularpainfullessonsoneneededtolearn,andwhyoneneededtolearnthem.4

AnExampleofChanneledWriting:ACourseinMiracles

Modern channels bolster credibility by using imagery, values, andarchetypes from both Eastern and Western religions. A book thatexemplifiesthisisACourseinMiracles.Weuseitasanexamplebecauseitpurports tobenon-authoritarian,while claiming tobe channeledbynolessanauthoritythanthespiritofJesusChrist.Also,theCoursemorethan intimates that through the proper practice (doing its lessons),anyonecanbecomeachannelforthespiritofChrist.Allchanneledinformation,includingreligions,createsaclosedsystem

that is entirely self-referential. Any challenges from outside can bedeflectedbycallingthemlimitedunderstanding.Sothere is littletobegainedfromdebatingthevalidityoftheCourse’sworldview.Rather,wewant to show that its worldview is renunciate, and contrary to itsposture that people must rely on themselves, A Course in Miracles isauthoritarian. We single it out because it is a classic example ofprogrammingthoughttorenunciatebeliefs.5AlthoughtheCoursecallsitselfessentiallyChristian,itdoesawaywith

Christianity’smoreunpalatabledogmas,suchassin,ajudgmentalGod,anddamnation.Instead,liketheEasternOnenessperspective,itcallstheworld we live in an illusion to be transcended and is specific aboutcallingallseparationanillusion.Itlikewisedenigratestheselfandself-centerednesswithsuchstatementsas“EitherGodorego is insane.” ItscentralmessageisthatthroughsurrenderingtoGod’swill,whichispurelove,illusionswillevaporateandonewillbeeternallyatonewithGod.Theessentialmethodologyusedtoachievethisisforgiveness.InsteadofbeingforgivenforsinthroughChrist,however,thenewmessageisthatthroughforgivingonecantransformone’slifeandbecomeChrist-like.Forgivingconsistsoflettinggoofalljudgmentsandgrievancestoward

othersandtowardthecircumstancesoftheworldat large.Theidealistoforgiveunconditionally.6Theverydoingofthisissaidtoloosenthebonds of ego that keep people from their birthright, which isexperiencingeternallovewithoutfear.Sinisredefinedaslackoflove,so

forgivenessisnotofsin,butinsteadoferror,orratherofone’sownandothers’ illusions. Illusions are presented as the cause of all enmity andsuffering,which is similar to certainHindu andBuddhist perspectives.Lettinggoofpastpainscanhavepsychologicalbenefits;buttoturnthisintoaprescription for salvationensuresdoingsobecomesan idealizedmold thatdenies and represses vital aspects of beinghuman.This is arealdangeroftheCourse,andofrenunciatereligioningeneral.ACourse inMiraclespresentsitselfasamanualthatonlyneedstobepracticeddailytoachievewhatitcallsthenecessary“completereversalof ordinary perception.” The Course’s introduction states that theteachingswerechanneledthroughawomanwhowascompelledtowritedowntheunasked-forwordsthatcametoheroveraseven-yearperiod,starting sometime in the late sixties. The voice purportedly identifieditselfasthespiritofthehistoricalJesusChrist.TheCourse isseparatedinto three sections: a 622-page text that contains its worldview; aworkbook for students consisting of 365 daily lessons whose statedpurpose is to “train your mind to think along the lines the text setsforth”;anda69-pagemanualforteachers.WhatisnotnoteworthyabouttheCourseisitsworldview,whichisnotessentiallynew,butamixtureofEasternmysticismwithChristianloveand forgiveness. Of more interest to us is its claim of not beingauthoritarian.ItisovertlystatedthatitisnotnecessarytobelieveanyoftheCourse’sassertionstoexperiencethepromisedtransformations:

Youneednotbelievethe ideas…accept them…[nor]evenwelcomethem.Someofthemyoumayactivelyresist.Noneofthiswillmatter,ordecreasetheirefficacy.

Allthatisrequiredisconscientiousdailypracticeofthelessons.Daily repetitionof the lessons is said to eventually bring forthone’sown“InternalTeacher”whichinturn,withoutanyexternalauthorities,will leadone to truth. It isassumedthateveryone’s InnerTeacherwillsay prettymuch the same thing as the channeled voice of theCourse.This claim is worth examining because under the guise of presentingobjectivetruththatanyseekercanfind,whatisactuallygoingonistheage-old ploy of authoritarian indoctrination: Aworldview is presentedbyanunchallengeableauthorityasthetruthtobefound.Thenpracticesaregiventhatreprogramandconditionthemindtothatviewpoint.To

quotefromtheintroductiontotheworkbook:

Thepurposeof theworkbook is to trainyourmind inasystematicwaytoadifferentperceptionofeveryoneandeverythingintheworld.Theexercisesareplannedtohelpyougeneralizethelessons,sothatyouwillunderstandthateachofthemisequallyapplicabletoeveryoneandeverythingyousee.

Toseehowthisisdoneonemustlookatthenatureofthelessons.TheCourseoperates throughgivinga lessoneachdayconsistingofastatement to be repeated like an affirmation, mantra, or prayer. Itunabashedly states that the functions of the lessons are first, “theundoing of the way you see now,” and next, “the acquisition of trueperception.” These two steps—undermining a person’s framework forintegration, and then programming in so-called truth—are basic to allmindcontrol.Wefindabsurdtheideathattruth,trueperception,oranykindofwisdomcanbeinstilledfirstbyinculcatingself-mistrustandthenprogrammingtheso-calledtruththroughrepetition.Thelessonscanberoughlydividedintothreecategories:

1.promulgatingdetachmentfromtheworldbydenyingitsreality;2.decreeingforgivenessandthelettinggoofgrievancestobetheonlyroutetoloveandsalvation;3. promising immortality and the elimination of all negativity through identifying onlywithwhatisdelineatedasthegodaspectwithinoneself.

Afewexamplesofeachcategorysufficetoshowwhat’sinvolved:

Category 1: The world is not real—everything is the opposite ofwhatitseems.

Lesson#1: “Nothing I see… [in this room, on this street, from thiswindow, in thisplace]meansanything.”Oneisaskedtolookaroundandpracticethisideaoneverythinginsight.Forexample,“Thistabledoesnotmeananything,”or“Thishanddoesnotmeananything,”etc.#3:“IdonotunderstandanythingIseeinthisroom(onthisstreet,fromthiswindow, in this place).”#5: “I am never upset for the reason I think.”#10: “Mythoughtsdonotmeananything.”#16:“Ihavenoneutralthoughts.”Hereoneisaskedtofillintheblankwithanything:“Thisthoughtabout___isnotaneutralthoughtbecauseIhavenoneutralthoughts.”#24:“Idonotperceivemyownbestinterests.”#25:“Idonotknowwhatanythingisfor.”#32:“IhaveinventedtheworldIsee.”#128:“TheworldIseeholdsnothingIwant.”#129:“BeyondthisworldthereisaworldIwant.”#132:“IloosetheworldfromallIthoughtitwas.”

The above affirmations (or rather negations) are all geared atundermining trust inone’sownexperience, thoughts, reason,andevenin the reality of the world. Lessons #128 and 129 are classicalstatementsoftherenunciateperspective.

Category2:Forgiveness.

Lesson#62:“Forgivenessismyfunctionasthelightoftheworld.”#66:“Myhappinessandmyfunctionareone.”#69:“Mygrievanceshidethelightoftheworldinme.”#72:“Holding grievances is an attack on God’s plan for salvation.”#77: “I am entitled tomiracles.”#78:“Letmiraclesreplaceallgrievances.”#342:“Iletforgivenessrestuponallthings,Forthusforgivenesswillbegivenme.”

Category3:Godis,orisineverything.

Lesson#29:“GodisineverythingIsee.”#93:“Lightandjoyandpeace.”#95:“IamoneSelfunitedwithmyCreator.”#67:“LovecreatedmelikeItself.”#99:“Salvationismyonlyfunctionhere.”#101:“God’swillformeisperfecthappiness.”#127:“ThereisnolovebutGod’s.”#138:“HeavenisthedecisionImustmake.”#156:“IwalkwithGodinperfectholiness.”#163:“Thereisnodeath.TheSonofGodisfree.”#170:“ThereisnocrueltyinGodandnoneinme.”#186:“Salvationoftheworlddependsonme.”#191:“IamtheholySonofGodHimself.”#199:“Iamnotabody.Iamfree.”#223:“Godismylife.IhavenolifebutHis.”#248:“Whateversuffersisnotpartofme.”#330asks,What“istheEgo?”thenanswers,“Theegoisidolatry;…doomedtosuffer.…”#340:“Icanbefreeofsufferingtoday.”

Finally#350 asks the question “What am I?” and then proceeds toanswer,

IamGod’sSon,completeandhealedandwhole,shininginthereflectionofHislove.Inme His creation sanctified and guaranteed eternal life. In me is love perfected, fearimpossible,andjoyestablishedwithoutopposite.IamtheholyhomeofGodHimself.Iamthe Heaven where His Love resides. I am His holy Sinlessness Itself, for in my purityabidesHisOwn.

The Course in Miracles is a strange amalgam of nouveau sinless,guiltless Christianity with a transcendent, separate creator-protectorGod; and of Eastern Oneness with an immanent, inclusive God-force.Thisgeneratesmanyinternalinconsistencies,butthenconsistencyisnotavalueof channeled“spirits.”Catalogingall the inconsistencieswouldbetedious,buthereareafewworthmentioning:

1.Forgiveothersforyourownsake—butyou’resupposedtobeselflesswhendoingso.

2.God isultimately responsible foreverything—yetpeopleare individually responsible,too. But responsible for what? If God is only love and other virtues, is God alsoresponsibleforthesufferingcausedbytheillusionofseparateness?TheCoursedoesnotevenattempt todealwith theproblemofevil,except todumpit into thecategoryofillusion. Illusion is thegreatgarbagecanofEastern religionwhereonecanget ridofanythingonedoesn’tlikebymakingitunreal.ThequestionofwhythereisillusionatallisbeyondthescopeoftheCourse.

3.God’splanistohealeverybody,butthereisnomentionofwhyGodcreatedpeoplesoinneedofhealing.God’smasterplangivestotalfreedomtohealoneself.Peoplewanttotalfreedom,butalsowanttheirpersonaldramatohaveaguaranteed(predetermined)happyending.

TheCourse isbutanotherrevealed(byanunchallengeableauthority)renunciate ideology that separates the spiritual from themundane, thepurefromtheimpure,theselflessfromtheself-centered.7 Itsayslistento your own voice, but programs what your voice will say by takingaway the validity of experience, reason, thoughts, and disapproved ofemotions. Like gurus, it then fills the vacuum it creates with its ownrenunciateworldviewofferingthesameoldcoinofeternalbliss.Nothingcouldbemoreauthoritarian,forwhocouldargueagainstadisembodiedspiritwiththecredentialsofatraditionalGod?Ifoneweretosay(aswedo)thatone’sinnervoicesayssomethingquitedifferent,thenwhat?When challenged, adherents often cavalierly reply, “Do the lessonsand you’ll see for yourself. Besides, you can’t know the Course orcriticizeituntilyoutryit.”Fromourperspective,thisconfidencemerelyshows that those willing to be programmed get programmed. Tounderstandwhythisisso,onemustnotonlyexaminetheexercises,butalsothenatureofthemindthatiswillingandabletodothemdailyforanextendedtime.Asanexamplewewillparaphraseandquoteanenthusiastandteacherof theCourse.We use this person’swords only to represent a positionwhich we (and he, too) believe is similar to that of many others.Consequently, we do not think the identity of the personmatters. HeinitiallystatesthatbeforedoingtheCourse,hewasverydisappointedinlifebecausehesawthatidealsimportanttohimwouldnotorcouldnotbe achieved in thisworld. “Themore I faced the ‘realworld,’ the lessreal I felt.”He had “a divided sense of self that didn’tmeasure up toanything”; and his “fragmented idealism” was “contaminated byconflictingambitions.”

Here is a personwhowanted theworld to fit intowhatweremostprobably idealsofpurity,wherenon-violence,compassion, selflessness,and love would reign supreme. It is not surprising this man wouldgravitatetowardaworldviewthatpresentedthesefouritemsasinfactreigning supreme, this being done by denying the reality of theworldwheretheydonotreignsupreme.Thissamepersonwentontosay,

Afteryearsof thrashingabout ina senselessworld that seemed toopposemyhighestaspirations, Ihavesimply forgiven thatworld…I’mno longerconcernedwithdefiningwhatthe‘realworld’is—perhaps,astheCourseasserts,thereisnoworldatall,butIdoknowIhavegainedapersonalsenseofauthenticity.

Hethenconcludedthathenowfeelsbetterthanheeverfeltbefore.Truthor falsityaside,what’swrongwith this?Whyshouldn’tpeople

dowhatevertheyneedtodotofeelasgoodastheycan,inaworldthatdoesn’tmake it easy? It isnot aquestionofwhetherpeople shouldorshouldn’tadoptaworldviewthatfitstheiridealsinordertofeelbetter—peopledowhat theydo.Adoptingauthoritarianrenunciateworldviewsinordertofeelbetterhasbeengoingonforthousandsofyears.Thisisnot new. The Course is a typical programming system that conditionsmistrustforallone’saccessestothisworld—mind,emotions,senses,andoverall experience.Havingbeenprogrammed todis-identifywith themandnegatethem,whatislefttotrust?Allthatremainsarethe“truths”oftheCourseinMiracles.Denyingtherealityofwhatonedoesn’t likeorfeelcomfortablewith

canallowa givenperson to feel better.The real question is, does thisbring about a viable world? So much of the Course waxes eloquentlyaboutthebeautyofcreation.Ittotallydeniestherealityandnecessityofdestruction.Butifdestructionisjustasrealascreation,one’sdestructivetendenciesarenottrulydealtwithbypretendingtheyarenotreal.Thisis theultimate tragedyofany renunciateparadigmthataskspeople torenounce (deny) either the reality of destruction or the reality of self-centeredness,asACourseinMiraclesdoes.Thiscreateswhatweconsidertherealillusion:thatdenialwillultimatelymakethingsright.8Many religionshave attempted toplacate fear andmakepeople feel

better about their lives through denying the importance of thisworld.Existential fears range from fear of death and pain, to fear of beinglovelessandunfulfilled.Thegreatillusionisthatthroughdenialonecan

transcendwhat one is afraid of,whether it bedeathor isolation. Fearcannotbeconquered inthis fashion, for it still lives in thestructureofthe illusions one builds to attempt to contain or eliminate it. Andultimately, if one fears one’s destructive side, then one must beconstantlywatchful lest inanunguardedmoment itexplode.Trying tokeepcontrolofwhatisdeniedisitselffear.What all renunciate worldviews such as A Course in Miracles really

createare internallydividedpeoplewhoneedanexternal authority tohelp keep control of their unwanted parts. When inner division ishandled by adopting a belief system that further denies the reality ofthatwhichoneisuncomfortablewith,peopleconclude(wronglyinourview) that they have touched into a deeper, more real part ofthemselves.Inourinterpretation,what’sreallyoccurringistheybecomeconvinced their so-calledhigher self is the only reality,which initiallyalleviates conflict. This results in strengthening an inner authoritarianthattriestorepressimportantpartsoftheselfitjudgesasbad(theself-centeredorcarnalaspects).9

WhatAreChannelsChanneling?

Inchanneling,whereagivenvoicereallycomesfromcanbeexplainedinmanyways,withnoway toprove toeveryone’s satisfactionwhoorwhatisdoingthespeaking.Thisiscompoundedbytheknowncapacityofthemindtocompartmentalizeitselftotheextentthatinformationinonecompartmentisblockedofffromanother.Howcanonebesurethevoiceofthe“spirit”isnotemanatingfromthepartofoneselfthatyearnstobepure,powerful,andimmortal?Totheextentthatthevoicemouthsold renunciate paradigms emulating ideals of purity, perfection, andselflessness,there’sgoodreasontosuspectthatthevoiceisactuallythechannel’sconditioned,compartmentalized“higher”self.One commonargument for the voicebeing external is that channels

couldnothaveaccessedthechanneled informationontheirown.This,coupledwith the similarity ofmost channeledworldviews, is given asevidence that the information comes from a different source than thepersondoingthechanneling.Butotherexplanationsforthisarepossible.Forexample,intimesofcrisis,whenhumanityisfacingthepossibilityofextinction,thereisagreatandunderstandableneedforreassuranceandhope. Some psychologists have asserted that the idea of a groupunconsciousbestexplainshowpeopleoperateingroups.Theypostulatethatgroupsofpeople createa contextor ambiance thathasa life andinfluence which is more than merely the sum of the individualsinvolved.So,theappearanceandpopularityofchannelsinthishistoricalperiodofcrisis,pain,andspiritualemptinesscouldbeanexpressionofour group or collective unconscious needing to allay enormous fears.Yearnings forperfection, immortality, andaguarantee that some forceout therewill take care of everythinghave beenpart of the collectivedesires of humanity for millennia. Naturally this tendency greatlyincreasesintimesofbreakdown.Still other explanations are possible. Some might say these voices

come from other living minds (ESP), or are the residue of unfulfilleddreams.Whetherthetruesourceofagivenvoicecomesfromoneself,acollectiveunconscious,other livingminds,disembodiedhumanornon-

human spirits, or anything else is not subject to universally acceptedverification.Everyexplanationofchannelingphenomenahasbehinditaworldviewthatcanbechallengedbyadifferentworldview.Butwhatwefind indisputable is that for thousands of years, people have beenseeking external authorities, whether they be leaders, gods, extra-terrestrials,oracles,orchannels,torevealthetruthandmakethingsallright.Fromourperspective, thisverymentality isa largepartofwhathasbroughttheworldtowhereitistoday.If maturing as a species has anymeaning at all, it must mean thatsince collectivehumanity, forwhatever reasons,hasbeen instrumentalinbringingaboutthecrisisitfindsitselfin,onlyhumanity—people,allofus—canfindthecollectivesolutionwithinourselvesandeachother.Putting hope in anything external deflects from realizing that viablesolutionstomakethingsright,ormoreright,mustcomefromembodiedpeople.So,puttingasidewhethersupposedspiritsactuallyexistornot,the very looking to external authorities to make life right is merelyrecapitulatinganage-olddrama.Looking fora savior (or tobeone) istheoldsolutionthatnowhasbecomepartoftheproblem.Ourreasonsfor writing this book stem from a conviction that new and viablesolutionsinvolverealizing“Thebuckstopshere,”witheachofus.1See“Gurus,Psychotherapy,andtheUnconscious”formoreontransference.2See “Who Is in Control? The Authoritarian Roots of Addiction” on the nature of thisconditioning.3See“ThePowerofAbstraction:TheSacredWordandtheEvolutionofMorality”ontheoriginandnatureofthissplit.4“DoYouCreateYourOwnReality?”describesthisNewAgeadaptationofkarma.5“Religion, Cults, and the SpiritualVacuum” andPart Twodiscuss in depth the nature andproblemsofmoralsystemsthatpromulgaterenunciation.6“LoveandControl:TheConditionsUnderlyingUnconditionalLove”describeshowtheidealof unconditional love is a prescription of a renunciate moral order that insidiously impactsemotions and relationships, distorting the experience and expression of love. Its sections“Forgiving and Letting Go” and “The Religious Foundation of Unconditional Love” show howthese ideals mask their underlying authoritarianism and why they are unlivable. Ideals ofunconditionalforgivenessorunconditionalcompassion(theBuddhistversion)arevariationsonthesamethemethatcreateunlivablestandardsofemotionalpurity.7See“SatanismandtheWorshipoftheForbidden:WhyItFeelsGoodtoBeBad”and“WhoIsinControl?”onthewaythissplitdividesaperson,causinginternalconflict.8“Oneness,Enlightenment,andtheMysticalExperience”critiquesindepththeworldviewthatdeniestherealityofordinaryexperience.

9See“WhoIsinControl?”onthedividedpsycheandhowthehigheroridealselfisreallyaninnerauthoritarian.

S

DoYouCreateYourOwnReality?

KarmaBecomesOmnipotence

omeyearsagoataconferenceexamining the spiritualdimensionofexistence,thekeynotespeaker,afamouspsychologist,intalking

abouthowweallcreateourownrealities,said,“Icannotprovethistoyou, but I firmly believe that I chose my parents.” Presumably thismeanthebelievedthatnotonlyhe,buteachofus,too,createourownrealitytotheextentthatweallchoosewhichparentstobebornto.Theimplicationsaboutthenatureofexistencecontainedinthatremarkarevastandinclude:

1.Thathe,orsomething,existedbeforehisbirththatdidthechoosing.2.Thathecouldhavechosen someotherwayofbeingborn,otherwise there isno realchoice.Perhapshecouldhaveevenchosennottobebornatall.

Tobeconsistenthewouldhavetoacknowledgethathisparents,whowerealsopresumablycreatingtheirownrealities,eachchosehim.Howwasthisagreementreached?Didthesethreegatheronadifferentplaneofexistenceandworkitout?Ordidtheyeacharriveatthesamechoiceindependently?Heretheproblemishowalltheseindependentlycreateduniverses interact without one being able to essentially influence(change) the outcome for another. If one says the choices of eachindependentactoralwaysconvenientlydovetail(Ichosemyparentsandthey chose me, and by extrapolation this is so for all parents andchildren), what is called choice appears more like an elaboratelychoreographeddancefullofisolatedentitiesactingouttheirpartswithnorealfreedomatall.Was it coincidence, accident, or considered forethought that these

three entities should arrive upon the samemutual choice; orwas it afunctionofsomegreaterplanthatarrangedthemtobetogetherinthis

unique way? Did they meet at some other level of reality they laterforgot about to see if theywould choose each other? Butwhat if onesaid,“Ichooseyou,”andtheotherreplied,“Nothanks”?Theideathateach of these three people should arbitrarily choose the same eventstretches credulity to the breaking point; on the other hand, if therewere some higher order or force involved, even if it be that theydeservedeachother,thenwhatmeaningdoeschoicehave?At thispoint,abemusedreadermightwonderwhy thispsychologistfound it necessary to make such an extreme claim and why we aredevoting time and space to it. The reason is that to maintain a “Youcreate your own reality” perspective, it must be absolute and cannotallowanyexternalinfluencestobearealfactor.ForifsomethingoutsideofmeishelpingcreatetherealityI’mexperiencing,thenIamnotdoingit alone. (Perhaps I do not even have the majority vote.) What isimportant to see is why this positionmust be extreme. Elsewhere weshowwhy letting in even a little bit of freedom changes everything.1Heretoletinjustalittlebitofdeterminismorcausalitythatisnotself-generated likewise changes everything. For if there is any, even theslightest, separate or accidental external factor contributing to the“reality”thatyouareexperiencing,thenyouhaven’tcreateditall.Ifyouhaven’tcreateditall,howmuchandwhatpartofithaveyoucreated?Inthisframeworkithastobeall,oritdoesn’twork.Our interest in examining the “You create your own reality”framework stems from the irony that it appears the antithesis ofauthoritarian control, yet many groups that promulgate it areauthoritarian.Thisisbecause,aswewillshow,itcanneitherbeprovednordisprovedandmustbetakenonfaith.Itisimportantfirsttoclarifywhythosewhohaveadoptedthisbeliefhavedoneso.Inqueryingmanyof this persuasion, a usual reply is that upon having taken totalresponsibilityfortheirlives(anextensionoftheself-createdrealitypointofview),adramaticshiftoccurredinwhichtheyexperiencedthemselvesas self-actualizing, and life itself became richer in every way. Thisviewpointcanalsoinitiallybring:

1. A sense of real power (or empowerment, to use the vernacular). This is especiallypotent if one had previously felt either victimized or saw oneself largely moved byforcesoverwhichonehadlittleornocontrol.2. An expansion of the field of possibility by removing previously limiting attitudes,

wherebyone’svistasenlargeandanewsenseofgreatpotentialbeckons.3.A lettinggo (at least on the surface)ofblamingothers.This can shift the contextofrelationships,makingiteasiertoconnectwithpeople—fewenjoybeingblamed.4.Apowerfulmentalalignmentwithotherswhosharethesamebelief,bringingasenseofcommunity.Alignmentnotonlyreinforcesbelief,butalsoopensboundaries,whichcanbringmoreenergyandnewnessintolife.

Within the self-created realityworldview there are serious issuesofcontrol and responsibility that this theory tries to simplify under oneuniversal precept. This issue warrants examination not only becausemany channels, spiritual teachers, prosperity workshops, and“responsibility” seminars are promulgating it, but also because it isinteresting and droll to see how the East’s somewhat fatalistic beliefshave been turned on their head to meet Western predilections forfreedom, self-reliance, control, and personal responsibility.Wewish toshowwhywethinkoperatingunderthispreceptinthelongrunmakespeoplelessfreeandeffective,notmoreso.Wantingtotakechargeofone’slifeisunderstandable.Butthedesireforsuchomnipotence,tobetotallyinchargetotheextentofcreatingallofone’sreality,hasdeepandunexaminedimplicationsaboutthenatureofreality ingeneral.This includestheneedforakarma/rebirththeoryto make it work. Although it is not usually presented as totallydeterministic, in the East the concept of karma has a pronounceddeterministic flavor. Since Westerners largely do not have a taste forextremeausterity,unduerenunciation,ortoomuchpassiveacceptance,it is interesting to see the way some Westerners have utilized thisconcepttogivethemselvesfreedomwithoutexternalconstraints.Wewillassumethereaderhasat leastapassingfamiliaritywiththeideaofkarma.Briefly,itstatesthatasyousowinthislife,soyoushallreapinafuturelife;andthatwhatyouarereapingnow,yousowedinsome previous lifetime. Karma is presented as a cosmic, impersonalmoral principle, law, or force that ensures everyone gets what theydeserve. Its essential function is to guarantee the universe is fair andjust.Shouldthisideabegivenanycredence,thequestionstheninvolvehow it all works. Karma is the moral equivalent of a monotheistic,omnipotent,omniscientGodinthatit,too,hasunbendingrulesforhowto be, with inbuilt rewards and retributions. Karma, like themonotheisticGod,cannotbeescaped.Althoughthebasicrulesofkarma

are structural, not specific, still, generating “bad karma” is the moralequivalentofsinning.The theory of karmic causality views all consequences (karma) as

generatedbytheattachmentsofego.Karmaismoresophisticatedthansinforalthoughitistheobstacletospiritualrealization;yetitisalsothemeans by which realization is obtained, for it is part of the chain ofprogression.Sotwobasic,complementarystancesareproposed:Donotresistthekarmayouhavepreviouslygenerated;andthroughdetachingfromego,generateless,andeventuallynone.Karma/rebirththeoriesintheEastarethusessentiallyrenunciateinthattheymandaterenouncingself-centeredactivity.2The New Age extrapolation of karma theory goes beyond merely

saying that one has created karma to live out. It states that at everymomentoneiscreatingthewholeofwhateveritisoneisexperiencing.Itreasonsasfollows:Whereyoufindyourselfnowisafunctionofyourpastactionsandattitudes(karma),andwhereyouwill findyourself inthe future is determinedbywhat you are doingnow.Whynot extendthistoitsextremelimitandsaypeopletotallycreate,andarethereforetotallyresponsiblefor,theirownreality?Even the most absolute view of “You create your own reality,” no

matterhowbizarretocommonsense,cannotbedisprovedbylogic—inthesamewaythatsolipsismcannot.Infact,thesetwoviewssharemuchincommon.SolipsismisthephilosophicalpositionthatIaloneexistandam thus theentire cosmos.Everything that appears tobenot-me I ammerelyfabricating(presumablyformyownamusement).Nothingcanbepresented toa firm solipsist that could logicallydissuade thisbelieforprove it wrong. A difference between solipsism and believing “Youcreateyourownreality”isthatthelatterhasauniversepopulatedwithmanyentitieseachcreatingtheirownrealities,insteadofmerelyone.Subjectiveidealismisthephilosophythatstartsoutbypostulatingthe

only thing anyone can know for sure is their own internal experience.The18th-century thinkerBishopBerkeley isanexampleof this, asaresomeformsofBuddhism.Thispositionwhenpushedtoitsextremeleadsto solipsism, because ultimately your ownprivateworld is all you areleft with. Solipsism is presented in philosophy classes as an absurditythat results from taking the logic of a position to an extremewithoutregard for reasonableness. No one takes it seriously. Thinkers try to

influenceotherthinkers,butiftherearenootherthinkers,whybother?Inourview,“Youcreateyourownreality”takeskarmictheorytothesamekindofextremeassolipsismdoeswithsubjectiveidealism.Inotherwords, it is also a logical extension, but pushed to the extreme ofmultipleomnipotence.Ittakestheappealingself-creatingpartofkarmictheory and ignores its deterministic and retributive side. The problemthatanyseriousessentiallysubjectiveviewofrealityfacesisexplaininghowandwhyallthesubjectiverealitiesseemtodovetailandbefacingsimilar problems in a similar world. Bishop Berkeley was forced toinvoke God’s subjectivity (the mind and will of God) as a protectionfrom solipsism, and as a constraint that keeps everyone else’ssubjectivitysomewhatinline.Many who have tried to live in the “You create your own reality”worldview eventually become uncomfortable with its absoluteness. Toaccommodate this, some have adopted a “multi-leveled” explanation,wherein on one level (the worldly or secular), total self-creation isn’ttrue; but on a supposedly higher,more spiritual level it is.How thesedifferentlevelsofrealityinteractorcreatethelargercontextofrealityisleftobscure.Otherexponentsdoanotherkindoflevelsshift,sayingthe“I”(in“Icreatemyownreality”)theyarereferringtoisanexpressionoftheunityofallbeing (Oneness).3This, in the idiomof the sixties, isacop-out because to identify the “I” with the unity of all being in thisfashionistogiveuppersonalchoice.Ifthewholeisdirectingthingsandchoreographing itall,whatdoeschoicemean?When levelsare shiftedparadoxisofteninvokedtoaccountforcontradictions,whichfromourpointof view is an indicationof the limitationof a framework, and isnotasatisfactoryendtoinquiry.4If individual choice is so powerful that people even choose theirparents, then why not create a reality where one receives greatadmirationandrespect,alengthylifefulloflove,delight,anddiscovery,andgreatsexonrequest?Thetypicalanswertothisisthatpeoplecreateforthemselvestherealitytheydoinordertolearnthelessonstheyneedtomoveon.Butwho created the lessons that need to be learned, andwhodecideswheretomoveonto?TosaythatIcreateditallformyselfpaintsapictureofpeoplewhogivethemselvesalotofpainfullessonstoreachagoaltheyalsocreatedforthemselves.Ifsomethingelsecreatedtheneedforthelessonsandthegoalthelessonsbring,thenoneisnot

totallycreatingitall.This genre of statement is representative of the self-created reality

worldview:“Igavemyselfa flat tire today.” Inattention toaworn tirecan“cause”aflat,buthowandwhydidonecreatethenailsontheroadthat punctured the tire? Also, new tires get punctured, or are boughtfaulty, etc. From here only the “lessons to be learned” rationale canexplain why one gave oneself this or any unpleasant reality. “Lessonsthatneedtobelearned”isthewaykarmahasbeentranslatedbythosewhohavedistasteforitsretributiveandfatalisticaspects.Similar to the way theories of karma need past lives to justify a

particular view of morality, theories of self-created reality need pastlives to justify a particular view of responsibility. For underneath theidea that I createmy own reality is the corollary that I am thereforetotallyresponsible foreverythingthathappenstome.Thepsychologistinitially mentioned knew that parents contribute to shaping theirchildren, as does the rest of the environment. So to be totally seriousaboutcreatingreality,onewouldhavetoincludeeverythinginit.WhenaskedwhythousandsofVietnamesechildrenkilledbynapalm

created that reality for themselves, andwhat lesson they learned fromthis,theonlyviableexplanationisthattheycreatedtheneedtodothattothemselvesinsomepastlife,andthelessonwillcarryoverintotheirfuture lives. Here the notion of karma takes on a particular Westernflavor,sothatpresumablytheVietnamesechildrenchosethisparticularform of death in order to work out the karma (learn a lesson theythemselvescreatedaneedtolearn).IntheEast,karmaisacquired,notchosen,andsotheproperattitudetowhatcomesone’swayissurrendertoit;whereasthe“self-creation”beliefmakespeoplefeeltheyhavethepowertocreatewhattheywill.The“Youcreate”versionofkarmamustpositthatalltheindividuals

inanyparticulargroupwhosufferasimilarfate—beittheUntouchablesinIndia,thetorturedCambodians,AIDSvictims,oranyunderprivilegedgroup—havechosensimilarlessonstolearn.Theimplicationisthattheychosetobebornintoagivencontextpreciselytosufferinthewaytheydo.Noneofthiscanstandupwithoutresortingtopast-lifejustifications.This becomes especially obviouswherever brutality toward children isconcerned, for given their relative innocence, it’s unimaginable theycouldhave(aschildren)createdsomeofthehorriblerealitiestheyfind

themselves in.Ultimately (though sometimes reluctantly) reincarnationisdraggedouttojustifyallthehorrendousrealitiessomanypeoplefindthemselvesin.(Thatthisviewcanimplicitlybeusedtojustifyracismoranybrutalityoughttobeobvious.)Anotherexampleofnotwantinganyconstraintsarethosewhobelieve

that at any givenmoment they are free to create the total context oftheirlives.Aworkshopleadergliblysaidinalecture,“Sincethereisnosuchthingasobjectivereality,justchoosetherealitythatworksbestforyou.”Withoutgoing into themanyproblems thatmaintaining suchanextreme subjective position entails, here is just one example: Is thechoice to create whatever reality one is creating always a consciouschoice? The intelligible answer here would have to be “No.” If I amcreating a given reality in order to teachmyself a needed lesson, it isonly after experiencing the lesson (usuallywith some pain) that I canknowIneededit.IfIhadknownbeforehandwhatapainfullessonwasin store for me, I might well not have chosen it. So the question is:what’s that part of me that knows I need a lesson, and what is itsrelationshiptothatpartofmethatneedsthelesson?Tosaythepartofmethatknowsismy“higherself”onlyconfoundstheissue.Whyistherealowerselfatall,orahigherselfthatneedstogivealowerselfalotofpainfullessons?Traditional psychoanalysis has been very deterministic, attributing

one’swoestobiologyandearlytraumasthatcannotbeescaped.(Freud,whowasnotveryoptimisticaboutthepossibilitiesforhumanfreedom,feltthatatbestonecouldmitigateandadapttotheseexternalshapersofone’s personality—that is, learn to live with them through extendedtherapy.) Psychoanalytic determinism facilitates blaming the fates orone’sparentsforone’shangups,andthusencouragesavictimmentality.Thenotionoftakingcompleteresponsibilityforone’slifewasareactionagainst this. It became the therapeutic alternative many humanisticpsychologiesusedtocounterpsychoanalyticalpessimism.Apsychologyneedsaworldviewasafoundationtoholditup.Freudusednineteenth-century deterministic science. Many New Age psychologies adoptedEastern models instead to “empower” the individual to be self-actualizing. The self-created reality theory takes self-actualization andpersonalresponsibilitythefurthesttheycango,towherenoconstraintsexistoutsideoneself.

Justaskarmahascausalandethicalimplications,sodoconceptionsofresponsibility.Toberesponsible foranyoccurrencecanmeanthatonewasthecauseofit,orthatonehasanobligationtodealwithit,orboth.Theusualassumptionisthatifoneisthecause,oneisobligatedtodealwith the effects. Karma is aboutmerit and demerit, credit and blame;this too iswhatmanypeoplemeanbyresponsibility. Ifone is thesolecause (I, and I alone createmy reality), then the responsibility for theoutcome(thecreditorblame),aswellasdealingwithit,restssolelyonone’sshoulders.Also,oftenconveniently,whateverhappenstosomeoneelserestscompletelyontheirs.Believing that you omnipotently create (choose) your universe, andthat anything that’s happening to you is happening because you’remakingithappen,canhaveenormousappeal.Itmeansthatifyou“doitright”youcangetanythingyouwant.Thisisapendulum-swingreactionagainst the powerlessness of the victim mentality where the world isdoingittoyou.IfIamactuallydoingit,thenIcanchangeit;whereasiftheworldisdoingittome,Iprobablycan’t,becauseit’sobviouslymuchhardertochangetheworld.ThethoughtthatIamdoingitalltomyselfhasasenseoffreedomandpowerinit,andofcourseoneisalsototallyincontrol.As an example of how much control one really has, this cliché iscommonly given: “You are creatingwhatever feelings you are feeling,andareconsequentlytotallyresponsibleforthem.”Thisispresentedastruebydefinition;ifyou’refeelingit,you’recreatingit.Thismeansnoonecanmakemeangry.IcreatethefeelingsofangerinmyselfandIamtotally responsible for them. There is a difference betweenacknowledging that attitudes and beliefs shape or influence one’sfeelings andmaking them the absolutedeterminants. If adrunkdriverruns over my child, am I the total cause of my anger? This position,whencarriedtoanextreme,blamesoneselfnotonlyforhowonefeels,butevenfortheeventthatbroughtaboutthefeelings.Althoughthisbeliefhassomecredibilityonthepsychologicallevel,itlessensconsiderablyifextendedtothephysicallevelwherecausalityismoreconcreteandvisible.Thiswouldallowanyonetohityouandthendenyresponsibilitybynotingthatyouaretotallyresponsibleforcreatingthepainyouareallowingthecellsofyourbodytoregister.Andthatitisalso your task to wonder why you created a reality that involves

someonehittingyou.Thoughabsurdonthephysicallevel,thisargumentisusedtodenycontributingtoanother’spsychologicalpain.Itistrueavictim mentality that blames only external factors limits possibility.However,totakefullresponsibilityforeveryoccurrenceandvicissitudecanbejustasbindingsinceitcanengenderguilt,inadequacy,andself-doubt.(“WhyamIdoingthistomyself?”)If you made it happen, then obviously you deserve it; and theresponsibility of dealing with it is yours and yours alone. As withtraditional karmic theory, cosmic justice is built in. All theories ofkarma/rebirth have difficulty drawing a line between free will anddeterminism.5Butherethereisanaddeddifficultyinexplaininghowitis thatontheonehand,past livescreateneededlessonstobe learned,yetatanymomentoneisnevertheless freetochoosetherealityoneisexperiencing(oranyother).Are there asmany realities as there are people? Should we includeanimals in this? Possible extra-terrestrials? There is a real differencebetween saying that every subject creates subjectivity, and saying thatevery subject creates its total reality. How do these separate realitiescoordinate,oraretheynotreallyseparate?Ifonsomeotherlevelpeopleand their realities are not separate, then something else besides theindividualisdefiningreality.Anycommonorsharedrealitywouldhavetobesomehowcoordinated,butbywhomorwhat?Whatlevelofrealityis doing the coordinating? Who is really in control? Right now thereseemtobebillionsofpeoplecreatingpainfulandfrighteningrealitiesforthemselves. Does each individual facing starvation, disease, and thethreatofdeathneedthisasalesson?Tosaythatthespeciesneedsthisasalessonjustwillnotdo.Suchaleapfromsingulartocollectiveself-creation does away with individual omnipotence and individualresponsibility,too.Thepointof thisdiscussionis toshowthedifficulties inmaintainingsuch a framework without creating deep inconsistencies or makingassertions about reality that strain credulity. The assertion that realityconsists of a multitude of subjectively manufactured realitiesindependentofeachotherisaviewpointaboutreality—aviewpointthateitherdescribeswithsomeaccuracythewaythingswork,oritdoesnot.When a framework is a closed system fraught with inconsistencies,convolutedjustifications,andself-affirmingexplanationsthataretrueby

definition(tautologies),thenthereisgoodreasontosuspectthatwhatisinvolvedissomethingquiteotherthanaquestfortruth.Instead,there’san excellent likelihood that what is really involved is justifying deeppersonalpreferences.The relationship between control (taking charge) and surrender

(letting go) presents one of the deepest existential quandaries humansface.Differentworldviewsemphasizeoneovertheother.Taoism,whichpromulgates flowing with the river of life, is strong on the letting goside,asaremostEasternkarma/rebirth theories.Surrendering toone’skarma,toduty,andtoaspiritualauthorityaredeeplyembeddedinthetraditionalviewsofkarma.6Incontrast,theself-createdrealitytheoriespushcontroltothehilt.Behindthisneedforultimatecontrolisthefearthatsomeone,orsomething(perhapsanindifferentuniverse),cancomeinatanymomentandmakemefeelsomewayIdonotwantto,ortakeawaywhatIcherishmost(evenmylife).SoIchoosemyfeelings,choosemy time of death, and choose what parents to be reborn to. HereWestern preferences for control and unrestricted possibilities create aworldview that also builds an emotional shield of invulnerability toexternalevents.Wesuspect that feelingsof impotencewhenfacing thejuggernaut of these changing, unstable times are behindmany peopleadoptingthisextremeposition.We do think that all of us are participants in creating not only our

ownreality,butamutuallysharedreality.Inourvieweveryoneaffectsand isaffectedbythecontext.At times thecontext issooverpowering(anearthquakeorrepressivepoliticalsystem)thatthereislittleonecanimmediatelydo.Atothertimesanindividualcanexertrealleverageinshapingthecontext.Withinthisdialecticalperspective,theissueofwhoor what is in control is fluid and ever-changing. We believe the realreason people adopt the self-created reality framework is wanting tohavethefinalsay(bottom-linecontrol)overtheirlives.In all of us, our nervous systems shape incoming data; our

conditioning patterns program responses; our preferences andpredilectionsuniquely filterourexperience;andourcapacities for self-awarenesscanbringchange.Thusinourview,wedohavethefreedomto partake in creating tomorrow. But to deny that reality (includingone’s own) is also at every moment being co-created not only byeveryonebutbyeverythingignorestheothersideofthedialectic.Foras

Iambusycreatingreality,realityisbusycreatingme.Toconfoundthisdialectical relationshipblurs the taskof trueawareness,which realizesthat to be human involves being both in control and out of control.When to take charge, and when to let go, are at the crux of everyexistential dilemma. Here no formulas can give the proper resolution.“Youcreateyourownreality”isaformulathatgivespeopletheillusionofabsolutepower.Nottoacknowledgetheinterplayofbeinginandoutof control eventually isolates people from the very reality they thinkthey’recreatingbydistortingtheirperceptionofit.Convertingtothisbelief initiallycangivepeopleenergy,confidence,

and inspiration to change their lives, but it eventually generates guiltand feelings of failure when reality obstinately resists the hoped-foromnipotence.Probablythosewhotakeonthisworldviewdosooutofadeepintuitionthatthereissomethingbasicallytrueandimportantaboutone’srealitybeingself-created.Weagree.Butthateachofuscreatesourownrealityisonlyapartialtruth,whichiftreatedlikeatotaltruth,isalie. This belief implies people are totally disconnected units, eachcreatingaseparaterealitythatneitheraffectsnorisaffectedbyothers.Thisisnottheconsciousnessneededtosurvive.1“AmIForRealorAmIOnTape?FreeWillandDeterminisminKarma”inControlshowsthat

theambiguitiesbetweenthetwoarelargelyafunctionofamoralagenda.2The section on “Oneness” in “The Power of Abstraction” shows how karma is the moral

underpinningof theEasternOnenessworldview.Anentire sectiononkarma/rebirth (ofwhichthischapter isapart) inControl isdevoted toshowing thehiddenauthoritarianismwithin thewaykarmaisconceivedandpresented.3See“Oneness,Enlightenment,andtheMysticalExperience.”4Paradox as away of short-circuiting conceptual frameworks is covered in “TheAssault on

Reason”and“Oneness,Enlightenment,andtheMysticalExperience.”It isalsodiscussedintheBuddhismsectionofControl.5“AmIForRealorAmIOnTape?”inControlexaminesindepththecomplexitiesinvolvedand

presentsadialecticalviewoftheinterplayamongthem.6Thedialecticalrelationbetweencontrolandsurrenderisdiscussedingreaterdepthin“The

SeductionsofSurrender”(andalsoin“BuddhismandtheAbuseofDetachment”inControl.)

MHealingCrippledSelf-Trust

any people who give themselves to authoritarian groups andlater become disillusioned end up deeply mistrusting

themselves. In order to surrender to an external authority, some self-mistrustalreadyhastobepresent.Thisincludesnotbelievingonecouldget “it” (whatever “it” is) on one’s own. Ironically, people usuallyimplicitly trust their capacity to recognize the authoritywho can leadthem to what they want. But unfortunately, given how easy fear anddesire are tomanipulate, this is possibly the last thing that should beexemptedfrommistrust.Thedeeperonesurrenderstoanauthoritarianstructure,theharderit

istodetachfromitbecauseone’sveryidentitybecomeswrappedaroundthat context—one’s emotions,beliefs, images,worldview, relationships,etc. In fact, thegroup,withtheauthority figureat thecenter,becomesthe foundation of all meaning, intimacy, and even possibility for thefuture.Thoseintheinnercircleorhighontheorganization’srungshaveanevenmoredifficulttimeunhooking.Mosthaveachievedmorepowerand feelingsof specialness than theyeverhadbeforeorcouldon theirown.Eachbecomesaminorauthoritytothosebelow.Leavingagroupafterhavingsurrenderedtoitoftenputsonebackinto

the confusions and lacks that initially made the group appealing. Inaddition,anothersometimesparalyzingformofself-doubtmayoccur—doubtingone’scapacitytofindawayoutoftheconfusion.One’ssenseofrealityisdelicatebecausemanythingspreviouslybelievednowseemthe opposite of what they were. What seemed right and good thenappearswrongandmalevolentnow.Theguru’s seemingunconditionallovewasreallyaboutwantingunconditionalpower;hisselflessnesswasegomania indisguise;hispuritywascorrupt.Theburningquestions inone’smindare:“HowcouldIhavebeensotakenin?”“HowcanItrustmyselftoknowwhat’srealorgoodforme?”Thedifficultyofleavingiscompounded by the reality that doing so rarely feels good initially.

Instead there’s bewilderment, anger mixed with depression, and self-blame.Fear isa largepartofwhatkeepsmany in thesegroups—notonlyafearofreturningtotheuncertaintiesofbeingonone’sown,butadeepfearofbeingawashwithoutbeingable to trustone’sown judgmentatall. This also impacts trusting others, for disillusionment around basicbeliefsoftenbreedsageneralizedcynicism.Sothestakesinbelievingornotbelievingintheauthorityareveryhigh.Thefollowers’fearsofgoingbacktoalifethatcouldbeevenworsethanbeforegivethegurumorepowerover them.This is similar toanaddict’s fearof returning to thedrab,dull life theaddictionwas trying toalleviate.Dependencyonanauthoritariangroupdisplaysmanysimilaritiestoaddiction.1Leaving such a group creates more than an identity crisis, for itinvolves mistrusting one’s deepest emotions and basic perceptions ofself, others, and the universe. In addition, one doubts the wisdom offollowingone’spassion.Whereaspassionaboutacauseusedtobeasignofauthenticity,it,too,cannolongerbetrusted.Theex-disciple’sworldhas turned on its head: What the guru and group presented asunconditional lovewas conditional upon accepting their authority; theegolessguruwasfoundtobeonamanipulative,evencrass,powertrip.For people who surrendered totally to a guru and thus experiencedpassionmore deeply than ever before, seeing “The emperor wears noclothes”canbedevastating.Soit’snowonderpeoplehavetremendousresistance to anything that causes them to doubt the veracity of theauthority.Surrenderingtoanauthoritymakesiteasytooverlookorrationalizewhat would ordinarily be considered unethical. Evenmore unsettling,onemighthavefoundoneselfdoing,orwillingtodo,veryhurtfulthingsto others. Some ex-cult2 members later admitted with shame andembarrassment that they would even have killed if the authority hadorderedit.Havingseentheextentoftheircapacityforself-delusionandfor being so under the sway of another, it is not surprising thatmanyupon leaving the group not only fear themselves, but the world ingeneral. They saw otherswhowere alsowilling to follow the leader’sdictatesnomatterwhat;sotheyrealizepeoplearecapableofdoingmostanything,whichmakestheworldamuchscarierplace.Ex-cult members often describe themselves as crippled, sometimes

even a decade ormore later.What is crippled is the capacity to trustoneself which, when lost, is difficult to regain. This is the seriouschallengethosewholeaveauthoritariangroupsface.Peopleusuallytryto overcome this through a determination never to be duped again.Unfortunately,thisstancebringsaboutdefensiveposturesthatleavetheperson cynical and closed. Underneath such cynicism is fear ofcommitment and openness—both of which previously broughtconsiderablepain.Behindmostcynicismthereisadisillusionedidealist.This protective posture can make people more functional, but with itthey become guarded, rigid, emotionally cut off, and vulnerable todepression because of a deep reservoir of fear and anger. Depressioncommonlycoatsfearandanger.It’s difficult tomake a deep connectionwith theworldwhen one isafraid tobeconned,deceived,or to followone’spassion.Thismistrustcan also affect one’s personal emotional life. In some cases, peoplebecome afraid to involve themselves in real intimacy. Becomingdisillusioned with the nature of surrender and passion can limit one’scapacity to love, becausewhatwas previously thought of as lovewasfound to be only image, and essentially a lie. Defending againstinvolvement often leaves excultmemberswith greater boundaries andlimitsthantheyhadbeforetheircultexperience.Whatrealhealingmustinvolveisrebuildingself-trust.Thisisnotaneasytask,forhavingbeenseducedbythecultexperiencegivesonelittlereasontotrustoneself.Ofcourse,itispossibleanotherperson’sloveorcarecouldbreakthroughthedeepmisgivings,enablingsomeopennessand trust to come. However, being open to one person does notnecessarily remove the fear of susceptibility to being taken in bycharismaticpeople,groupsandcauses,oranyotherkindofinvolvement.Onecanstillbebasicallyafraidofoneself.Themostextremeformofmentalcontroloccurswhentheauthorityistrusted completely and becomes the center of one’s identity. Sadly,societyandparentsinsidiouslyputoutmessagesfromchildhoodonthatothersknowwhat’sbest.Manypeoplearedeeplyconditionedtoexpectand hope some outside agency, power, or person will solve theirproblems. Letting go of expecting or even wanting this is difficult,partially because what one is left with is oneself, and all of one’slimitations.Butmovingpasttheoftengreatdisappointmentthatthereis

noultimateauthoritywhoknowswhat’sbestforotherscanallowonetobeopentowhatothersofferwithoutfearofbeingtakenoverbythem.The very ability to do this, however, is linked with self-trust. Thecapacitytotrustoneselfhasafeedbackloopinit:themoreyoucandoit,themoreofityoubuild;likewise,self-doubtbreedsself-doubt.Onceapersonhas beenhurt and crippled in away that deeply damages self-trust,thequestionishowtoturnthisaround?True healing can be accelerated by understanding the deep

mechanisms of what happened, and of authoritarian dynamics ingeneral. Then people can be more confident they won’t be taken inagain.Partofmaturationisrealizingthatnootherpersoncanknowwithcertaintywhatisappropriateforothers.Byremainingtheultimatejudgeof what’s right for oneself, one can receive and integrate what othersofferwithoutfearingdependency.One motive for writing this book is our belief that a deeper

understanding of the dynamics and pervasiveness of authoritarianismenablespeople tobe less susceptible to it.Thisdoes involvebecomingmore aware, for a real correlation exists between self-trust andawareness.Thepersonwhoenteredtheculthadgreatillusionsthatwerelater shattered; the personwho left the cultwas disillusioned, but didnot fullyunderstandor integratewhat reallyhappened.Self-deception,in varying degrees, is part of the human condition.Awareness of howeasily fear, need, and desire can be manipulated enhances criticalintelligence.Disillusionment in itself is not the real problem.Awareness involves

breakingthroughillusions,which,ofcourse,isdisillusioning.Oftentherealobstacleisbeingsoattachedtowhateveremotionsormeaningtheillusionswerefeedingthatlettinggoofillusionsfeelslikealossinsteadofagain.Toseehowone’spreviousgoodfeelingscontainedillusioncanbe a bitter pill at first. But even though the caring and sharing in theauthoritariancontextwerefoundtobemechanicalandephemeral,realcaring and sharing are a needed aspect of life. The illusion lay inbelieving in the authenticity of blind surrender and in the instantintimacydoingsooffers.Partofself-awarenessisalsoseeingthepoisonandultimateisolation

of the self-defensive posture. The little voice inside that warns not totrust others is deadly. It’s the samevoice that often comes after being

deeplyhurtinaloverelationship.Itspurposeistoensurethat“Thiswillnever happen again.” Rigidly controlling against further hurt anddisillusionment not only closes the door to passion, but also to thepossibilityoflivingwithoutfearofoneself.Thefearisthatwithoutself-control, one would again succumb to being taken over. Such controlbrings conflict and internal division because something basic is beingdenied. A whole person is open to love, which means risking thepossibilityofagainbeingtakeninandhurt.3If one has been truly disillusioned about authoritarian relationships(that is, lost one’s illusions, rather than merely being disappointed),there is far less likelihood of falling into the same traps or becomingcynical.Cynicismindicatesonehasnottotallygivenuptheillusions,butstillblamesothersor theworld forbeing letdown.Oftenwhat isheldonto are the ideals that mask authoritarianism, even though one hasbeendisillusionedbyagivenleader.Thisiswhypeoplefeelsusceptibleanddonot trust themselves, for as longas theyhaveunlivable ideals,theyaremanipulable.Itistheidealsthataretheillusion,notthefailuresofothersoroneselftoliveuptothem.4Lettinggoofillusionsisjustthat—letting go of all of it, including the emotions and expectations theyandtheirlossgenerate.Thenonecanbeopentothekindoflovethatisnotanillusion.1See“WhoIsinControl?TheAuthoritarianRootsofAddiction.”2See“Religion,Cults,andtheSpiritualVacuum”forhowwedefine“cult.”3“WhoIs inControl?”containsan in-depthanalysisof thecausesandramificationsofbeinginternallydivided,whichleadstoself-mistrust.Itdiscussesbecomingwholethroughintegratingthebasicdivisioninoneself.4The often clandestine nature of authoritarian ideals and their power and appeal are thesubjectsofPartTwoofthisbook.

Part2

IdeologicalMasks

T

Introduction:TheMoralsWars

hegreateststruggleontheplanettodayisforthemindsofpeople.Wecallthisstrugglethemoralswarsbecausetheconflictisabout

morality and its foundations.What this involves arebasic assumptionson how to live and be, what proper action is, and also (mostimportantly)howproblemsaretobesolvedornotsolved.Morality(theacceptedstructureinasocialorderdealingwiththeway

people should and do treat each other) is the glue that holds everysociety together. And underneath every moral order there is afoundation that justifies it.Whatever else this foundation is, it alwaysinvolvesapointofviewaboutwhatreality isandisn’t.Atthistimeinhistory,thefoundationsoftheoldmoralorderarebreakingdown.Whenthisoccurs,twopredictableandopposingforcesacceleratetheriftintheoldorder.Theyare:

1. Powerfulmovements that attempt to reestablish the strength of the oldmoral order.Theessentialstancehereisthatourbasicproblemsareafunctionofhavingstrayedtoofarfromtheveritiesofold.Thesolutiongivenis thenecessitytoreturntothemwitheven more fervor. The increase in popularity and strength of fundamentalistperspectives,worldwide,isthemostobviousexampleofthis.2.The searching for andexperimentingwithdifferent formsofhuman interaction.Thisinvolves a recognition that new ways to problem-solve are needed to deal with theplanet-threateningdilemmasbroughtaboutbyhumanabusetheoldmoralorderhasnotbeenabletocontain.Thoseinthiscampwouldincludeasparamountissuesallormostof the following: overpopulation; ecology and the portent of ecological suicide; theleveraging of the human capacity for violence to where it is species-threatening; theincreaseindiscrepancybetweenhavesandhave-notsworldwide;thehistoricomissionofhalfthespecies(women)fromtheconstructionofthepublicformsofsocialpower.(Manywomentheoristsrightlyarguethatinstitutionalizedpowertodayisavailabletoawomanonlyifsheplaysbytherulessetdownbymen.)Withinthispointofviewonehearsfrommanydifferentdirectionstheneedforabasicparadigmshift.

Thatthisbookalignswiththesecondperspectiveisobvious.Amajor

thesisof thesewritings is that it ispeople’sdeepconditioning towanteithertobeortoobeyanunchallengeableauthoritythatiskeepingtheplanetfromthekindofintelligenceneededinproblem-solving.Itisnotwithinthescopeofthisbooktopresentanewparadigm,althoughwedoputforththekindofshiftsinperspectivewethinknecessarytoallowanew paradigm to emerge. Rather, the emphasis is decoding theauthoritarianismwithin often hidden areas of the social order. Unlesspeoplecanseeclearlythewatertheyareswimmingin,thereisnowaytobuildaliferaftthatwillfloat.Sincemuchoftheauthoritarianismintheoldstructuresandhenceinourpsychesanddailylifeisunconsciousand veiled, it needs to be decoded and unmasked to free ourselves.Withoutthisitwillinfiltrateanyattemptsatnewsolutions.Aproblemwithbeingonthesideofthenewisthatitismoredifficulttomakepronouncementswiththetotalsuretythatthosewhobacktheoldmoralorderareabletoassume.Anythingreallynewlacksahistoryof articulation that lends strength and credibility to its insights. Thoseseeking new forms are usually splintered into many factions ofsomewhatdifferingpointsofview.Consequently,itisdifficulttogetthealignment that traditionalists can muster because they come from anestablished known that worked (to the extent that it did) for a longperiod(thousandsofyears).Asaresulttheforceswantingtorevivetheold aremore certain, self-righteous, andmorally accusative;while theforces seeking new solutions are often more tentative, sometimesapologetic,andoftenfindthemselvesonthemoraldefensive.The outcome of what we call themorals wars impacts nothing lessthanhumansurvival.Theoldorderbroughtustowherewearetoday.Itisunravelingbecauseitcannotdealwiththeforcesitunleashed.Iftheoldwinsout, there is little likelihoodwewill surviveasaspecies.Thefactthatthemajorovertagendaoftheoldorderisnotspeciessurvival,butratherpersonalsalvation,isnotinsignificant.Historyatthismomentisbeingstretched,madetautbytheopposingforces of the old and the new. It is in times like this that a crack inhistory can allow the new to flower. If humanity is to evolve into aviablerelationshipwithitselfandtheplanet,themoralswarscannotbetaken lightly. In the past the tensions between old and new had theluxury of working themselves out in whatever time it took. Now,because there is an ecological time clock, the old can defeat the new

merelybyimpedingthenecessarychanges—whichmeansintheend,noonewins.1Theconundrumhumanityfacesisthis:Weareonasinkingship,buttheonlymaterialswehavetobuildashipthatwillfloatcomefromtheshipitself.Theproblemisthatwemustteardowntheoldshipbeforeitsinks, rebuilding it at the same time without destroying the neededparts.1See“FundamentalismandtheNeedforCertainty”foramorein-depthanalysisofthestrugglebetween the old and new—and why there is no time for the usual way this struggle hashistoricallyresolveditself.

F

FundamentalismandtheNeedforCertaintyDogmatismvs.Modernization

undamentalists andmodernists are locked in a worldwide battleforminds.Thisconflictisbetweenoldvaluesandstructuresanda

new reality that doesn’t yet have a distinct shape or an appropriatemoral structure to fit it. The current rise of fundamentalism over theentireplanetispredictableinthatwhenthefabricofsociety,includingitsmoral underpinnings, begins tobreakdown, thedesire to return tothefamiliarandsecureisinevitable.Welookatthemovementofhistoryas occurring through the creation of tensions that turn into polarities,which eventually make the status quo impossible to maintain.Fundamentalismisthebedrockofonepole.Humanimpacthasgonebeyondspecificculturesandlocalities.What

isreferredtoasthe“commons,”thatis,whatimpactsallthepeopleinthe world—water, atmosphere, waste disposal, radiation levels, etc.—cannotbeproperlyprotectedormanagedwithoutabasicagreementonprioritiesandvalues.Untilpan-culturalsurvivalvaluesarecreatedthereis nothing firm to stand on. Pre-industrial tribal values usually doexpressthenecessityoftherebeingharmonywithnature.Buttheywerenotconstructedtodealwiththescaleofimpactwroughtbytechnology.When tribal people take in technology they, too, have difficultymaintainingharmony.1The concept ofharmonywithnature is valuable, but theproblem is

whatdoesharmonyreallyconsistofinthemodernworldandhowisitto be achieved? Once technology began greatly to leverage humanpower, the harmony that came from the balance of power betweenpeopleandnaturewaslost.Nowanewbalanceisnecessaryforsurvival.Butthiscanonlycomefromhumanscontrollinghowtheyutilizepower.Thisrequiresanentirelydifferentmodelbecausespeciesvulnerabilityisnowmoreafunctionofthemisuseofcontrolthanalackofit.Itisour

position that attempting to return to the old will not work. Both thequality and quantity of human impact are far beyond the capacity ofpast solutions to integrate them—largely because the values andworldviews thatgenerated theoldwaysareauthoritarian,and thusbytheirnature resistant to change.Noconsensushasever come from theclashofauthoritarianbeliefs.Thus,thereismuchtalkoftheneedforaparadigmshift.Atrueparadigmshiftwouldneedtoconsistofnotonlyabasicshiftinvalues,butinthewayvaluesarearrivedat,kept,andjustified.Theoldmoralities are based on authoritarian transmissions that essentiallycannotbechallengedbecausethepronouncementsarethoughttocomefrom an intelligence that is superhuman. Whether this intelligence iscalledGodoranenlightenedbeingdoesnotessentiallymatter.Waitingforamessianicfiguretostraightenthingsoutisapartoftheoldorder.Ifaparadigmshiftistocome,itcannotcomebyfiat.Itcanonlycomevia a shared discourse of caring peoplewho sense the urgency of thisendeavor.Tounderstandfundamentalism’spowerasaworldwidemovementitisnecessarytoexamineitsappeal.Ouraimisnotmerelytoshowittobeauthoritarian, an easy task. Fundamentalism is essentially aboutcontrolling people. It can only operate in authoritarian hierarchiesbecauseunchallengeabilitycanonlybepasseddownandenforcedinthisway. Thosewho are given or take power through its dictates, on anylevelof thehierarchy,haveavested interest in it.This includesmaleswho are given power in the traditional family. But the appeal offundamentalism goes even deeper because it offers certainty in a veryuncertainworld.Western religions contain the most clear-cut expressions offundamentalism,forinmonotheisticworldviewsanomnipotentGodlaysout the rules for everything and everybody. These rules are stated intexts—theBibleortheKoran.Thequestionthenbecomeshowliterallyisonetotakethesetexts?Hereadivisionoccursbetweenfundamentalistswhowanttotakethewordsasliterallyaspossible,andrevisionistswhouse the words as guideposts, while revising and modernizing theirmeaning. Fundamentalists see clearly that once people take it uponthemselves to revise the words of God, authority is undermined.Revisionistsseeclearlythatnottodosoleavesonewithanantiquated

worldviewthatisnolongerrelevantorcredibletomany.Fundamentalists and revisionistshave in commonwanting tokeepagiven religious framework operative. Both are interested in it as afoundation for human interaction. Both are interested in reform:Fundamentalistswanttoreturntotheoriginalmoralpuritythat is lostwhen religions grow more secular and either complacent or corrupt.Theydothisbyadheringtotherulesmorerigidly.Revisionistswanttokeep the spirit and meaning of the religion alive (as they see it) byrefurbishing theworldviewandmaking themoralitymore flexibleandless literal. The problem for fundamentalists is how to incorporatechange; theproblem for revisionists ishow tokeep thebasic structurewhilechangingit.Therecomesatimewhenthechangesnecessaryareso great thatmaking them no longer leaves the basic structure intact.Whenthesourcebehindastructureisauthoritarian,revisingittomakeit less authoritarian can only take one so far. If it becomes truly non-authoritarian, the structure crumbles. Because fundamentalism andrevisionismareboth inherentpolarizedtendencieswithinauthoritarianreligion that play off each other, this chapter will examine thementalitiesofeach,focusingfirstontheformer.Different fundamentalist groups have different fundamentals to gobackto.Butwhatarethesefundamentals,andwhyisitevennecessaryto goback to them if they are thepowerful verities they claim tobe?Fundamentalists all share the same viewpoint that what must bereturnedtoaretheunchallengeableandunchangingdictatesofahigherpower.Theyalllocatethecauseoftheneedtoreturninthefailingsofhumanity,thatis,inpeoplesuccumbingtoevil.2Somereligionsaremorerigidlyauthoritarianthanothers.WedevotelittleattentiontoIslambecauseitissoobviouslyauthoritarian—theverywordIslammeanssubmission.ItisanextensionofthedualisticJudeo-Christiancosmologywhosebasicpremiseisthat,aboveall,peoplemustsurrendertothewillofGodasdefinedbytheKoran.ThewordsoftheKoranarenotsubjecttodeepquestioning.SomeIslamicfundamentalistsconsider all of modernity the devil’s workshop, and with the moralrighteousnessthatcanonlycomefromcertainty,theywoulddestroyitiftheycould.RevisionistmovementswithinIslamaredeeplyconstrainedinhowfarthey can overtly challenge orthodoxy. Within Sufism (the mystical

branchofIslam)theideaoftheunityofallexistencewasputforthinaveryhiddenfashion.TheovertcontentofthewritingshadtobecouchedinawaythatdidnotdirectlychallengetheKoran,whichisunabashedlydualistic;sotheirmysticalpointofviewwascovertlyexpressedinlovepoems.TheneedtoprotectitselffromIslamicorthodoxyistoourmindsthe real reason Sufismwas esoteric. Significant elements within Islamhave never been shy, even today, of maiming and killing those whodisagree with them. Such draconian punishment stands as a starkexampleofhowprotectingwhat is considered sacred isused to justifyviolence.

TheEssenceofFundamentalism

Religions are worldviews, a prime function of which is to make themoral order seem non-arbitrary. One of the great fears in the humanpsyche (sometimesconscious,butoftennot) isofchaosandanarchy—not merely social, political, and behavioral anarchy, but an innerpsychological anarchy as well. The fear underneath much offundamentalism is that without powerful constraints, people (andoneself, too) would run amuck. Fundamentalism constructs hardcategories of good and evil that battle for the souls of people. Evil ispresentedassopowerfulthatapersoncannotwithstanditstemptationsunlessarmedwiththeproperbeliefs.Fearandmistrustofoneselfarenotonly promoted, but assuaged only through adopting the given beliefswithcertainty.3The great psychological appeal of fundamentalism is that it offers

certainty.Butwhat is theappealofcertainty?Certaintycanfeelbetterthanuncertaintyandconfusion. Itcaneliminate internalconflict,oratleastsuppressandbringrelieffromit.Religiouscertaintycanonlycomefrom surrendering to a higher authority, which like all forms ofsurrender, releasesblocked energy, givesdirection, and canbring easyalignmentwithotherswhosharethesamecertainty.4Certaintymustbeabletowithstandchallengesandcounterevidence—

anything that brings doubt. No combination of reason and experiencecangivethenecessarykindofcertainty,especiallyaboutthefuture.Sofaithisthekeytoreligiouscertainty.Faithreallyisbeliefinanideology,andthesimplerandmoreunambiguoustheideology,theeasiertokeepthe faith.A simpleuniversewitha simplegood (thosewho follow therules), and a simple evil (thosewho do not), and simple explanationsthatcanneverbedisprovenarenecessaryforcertainty.Everythingthatoccursis“atestoffaith,”“alesson,”“thewillofGod,”or“Godworksinmysteriousways.”Thesearesomeofthecatechismsthatkeepcertaintyfrom being shaken. Religious certainty is about basics—faith in anafterlife, inahigher intelligencethatultimatelyensurestheuniverse isfair and just, and faith that if one follows the rules this intelligence

personallycaresandprotects.The rules serve twobasic functions: They program the individual toobeyauthorityandcurbunwantedexpressionsofself-centeredness.Wesay “curb” purposefully, as absolute rules do not and cannot reallyeliminateagivenactivity;rathertheyoperatetokeepbehaviorswithinatolerablespectrumofdeviance.OnerulefromtheTenCommandments,“Thou shalt not kill,” is a case in point. Not only has it not stoppedkilling,butit isourthesisthatitwasneverreallymeantto.Thereisaseeming contradiction between the taboo against killing and actualbehavior,becausefundamentalistsasagroup(thereareexceptions)haveoften favored the death penalty and have beenmore “hawkish”whendealingwithenemies.Tosay“Ifyoubreaktheruleagainstkilling,we’llkillyou” is inconsistentonlyat theverbal level. It is totally consistentwithauthoritarianagendasofdoingwhateverisnecessarytoensuretherules are obeyed. Of course, other rules can be brought up to justifykilling a killer—“An eye for an eye…,” etc. Christ’s crucifixion itselfjustifiesusingpainandkillingasameans for somehigherend. IfGodhashisonlysontorturedandkilledinordertosavehumanity,thissetsapowerfulexample.With most fundamentalists, literal consistency that would apply theruletoallfacetsofbehaviorisnotavalue.Onthecontrary,becausetherules come from a source that is unchallengeable, doing whatever ittakestoprotectthemis justified.Anythingdesignatedasevil—therulebreakers,theinfidel,theevilempire—allcanbetreatedoutsidetherulesinthenameofprotectingtherules.Theinevitableresultofputtingrulesbeforepeoplewecall “ideologicaluncaringness.”Herewhatone reallycaresaboutiskeepingcertaintyandprotectingtheideologythatgivesit.Authoritarianmoralitycontainsaninherentdoublestandard:thereisthemorality itself, and then there is protecting it. Protecting theauthoritariansystemanditsmoralityalwaystakesprecedenceover themorality itself. Killing and violence or the threat of themhave alwaysbeenthebottomlineofauthoritarianpower.Themorecertaintythereisthat the rulesmust be obeyed, the easier it is to sacrifice others whodiffer.A key social function of morality is to keep aggression withinacceptable bounds. This is done by legitimating it in certain places,forbiddingit inothers.Theconceptof“rights”accomplishesthis.Until

fairly recently, husbands had the right to beat wives. The function ofsucharightistokeepwivesinline.Therightsofparentsoverchildrenandofgovernments tokillwhen they legislatedoingsohaveasimilarfunction.Themorerepressiveasociety is, themorethere isbottled-upaggressionthatneedssociallyacceptableoutlets.War,racism,wife-andchild-beating, and socially sanctioned vengeance are examples oftraditional outlets. The willingness to protect a belief at all costs hasbeenoneofthegreatsourcesofviolence.Fundamentalism’s moral certainty also allows a double standard ofmorality between the private and public sectors. The public sector isallowed great latitude in order to “protect” the moral purity of theprivate sphere. Actually, the ideal of many fundamentalists is not tohaveaprivatesector,buttohaveatheocracythatruleseveryaspectoflife.Thisdoublestandardalsooffersanescapeclause.Eventhoughlyingisconsideredwrong(“Thoushaltnotbearfalsewitness”),it’sO.K.tolieifitservessomehigherpurpose.Soparentscanlietotheirchildrenandgovernmentofficialstotheircitizens“fortheirowngood.”The issue for fundamentalism is how to get people to obey absoluterulesthatcannotbeobeyedabsolutely.Thereisofcourseforceandfear.But it ismorereliabletohavepeoplewhowanttoobeytherules.Theeasiestwaytodothisistomakepeoplefeelbadaboutthemselvesandthen offer them away of feeling better. Fundamentalism does this bycreating a worldview of sin and redemption via a moral order whosebasictenetsgivetheseeasyanswerstolife:

1.WhyamIhere?Togetbetterthroughobeyingtherules.2.Whydo Ineed togetbetter?Becauseapart of you isbad (original sin)—you’renotgoodenough.3.WhathappensifIbreaktherules?Yougetpunishedbyapowerthatisinescapable.Ifyouhavesufficientremorseandresubmit,youmaybeforgiven.4.WhathappensifIkeeptherules?Yougetrewardedbythatsamepower—usuallyafterdeath.

Theoldmoralorderwasnotoriginallyfundamentalist; itwassimplytheoldorder.Fundamentalismiswantingtoreturntowhateverideaonehasofitsoriginalpurity.Itsessenceliesinthebeliefthatanunassailablehigherpowerlaidoutnotonlyrulesforproperhumanactivity,butalsoput forth a cosmology, that is, a picture of existence, meaning, and

purpose that is true for all times. Certainty within fundamentalism isdependentuponanunchangingcoreofbelief.Thefundamentalistdistasteforevolutionarytheoriesismorethanthe

factthatevolutionmakestheliteralinterpretationoftheBibledifficult.It’s doubtful that all anti-evolutionists literally believe the world wascreatedinsevendays.Evolutionintroducestheideasofchangeandofacontinuity within life which gives an entirely different shape to thepositionofhumanityinthecosmos.Evolutionnotonlyintroducesbutisbasedontheideaofprocess.Oncerealityisaprocess,andhumanityisnotatthecenterofit,thereisnotellingforsurewhereitisallgoingtolead.Evolutionunderminescertainty,sofundamentalistsdeeplyfearit.Organized religions are the oldest, most static, and past-oriented of

institutions, geared at keeping their authority intact. Thus they mustconsider themselves not a part of history, but beyond it. Christianityends history with God’s final judgment. Eastern religions underminehistory more subtly by making it cyclical and repetitive, and also bymaking escape from thewheel of death and rebirth (history) the finalreward. The end result in both the East and West is that the truthsoffered are unchanging truths, not subject to the questionings ofdifferenttimes.Anappealoffundamentalisminaworldoutofcontrolisthatitoffers

the promise of control through previously effective authoritarianmechanisms.Butifpartofthereasontheworldisoutofcontrolistheinabilityofoldwaystokeepitincontrol,thenattemptingtogobackisnotonlyuseless,itishighlydangerous.Iftherewerenotimepressureonsolving the problems of human survival, the predictable rise offundamentalism could be taken in stride. Until now, the historicaltensionbetweentheoldandtheneweventuallyresolveditselfwiththeoldfading,asovergenerationsitbecameincreasinglyirrelevant.Whatisdifferentnowisthereisnottheluxuryofwaiting.

TheQuandariesofRevisionism

Historically all religions undergo revisions that create different sects,each developing in time a new orthodoxy. Revisions are deemednecessarybecauseofdissatisfactionwiththeprevailingorthodoxy,eitherowing to its corruption or to the loss of its relevance and hold overpeople.Within all religions there is a tensionbetween change and thestatusquo.Whentraditionalformsloserelevancetheimpetustochangeincreases,takingtwodirections:backwardinanattempttorecapturetheold, and forward to further revisions. To the extent that revisions arevariationson the same theme (ChristianityorBuddhism, for instance),theymusthavesomecommonalityandshareatleastsomecorebeliefs—evenwithfundamentalists.Themoreflexiblethecorebeliefs,themorethey can be stretched and still keep the basic form. One reason somepeopleareturningtoBuddhismisthatitscorebeliefsaremoreflexiblethanmonotheism’s.Theworldwideincreaseofbothfundamentalismandrevisionismisa

reflection of the stagnation of current orthodoxy. However, unlikepreviousreforms,Westernmonotheismisbeingstretchedtowhereitisno longer keeping the same form. Fundamentalists see this and blamethe moral and ideological complacency of mainstream religion forsettingabadexample.Theywishtogobacktotheirviewofanearlier,purerorthodoxy.Fundamentalistsareessentiallyauthoritarian,whereasmodernrevisionistsareattemptingtoinfuseoldauthoritarianstructureswithnon-authoritarianvalues.Revisionismdisplaysacurrentexistentialquandary: can one sufficiently change, and yet still keep some footingthatoffersstability,familiarity,andcomfortinthesechaotictimes?Revising religion has two interrelated aspects. Revising the theology

involvesmakingitmoretenableandpalatabletomodernminds;revisingthe institution involves making it more receptive to modern concernsand needs. Often people are not that interested in the intricacies oftheological discourse, but ratherwant a safe haven to bewith people,especiallyfortheirchildren.Aprimeexampleiswhatwecallconsumer-driven churches. Previously churches told people how to live; now

people tell churcheswhat theywant.These kindsof churches that arerapidly increasing in number and membership have public relationsfirms,advertisingcampaigns,andtakepollstoseewhatpeoplewantandthenaccommodatethem.What do peoplewant? The denomination often counts far less thanwhat kind of services a church offers. These new churches offer adulteducation, child care, celebrations, self-improvementgroups, organizedathletics and gyms, clubs, lectures, singles groups, and marriageenrichment.Somehavecloseto20,000members.Awagremarkedthatthesizeofthechurchislimitedonlybythesizeofitsparkinglot.Theyalso offer volunteer programs to help others and a soft Sunday schoolprogram to imbue childrenwithChristianvirtuesof love, cooperation,and compassionwithout sin or guilt. Sin, guilt, hell, and sermons thattellthecongregationhowtoliveortosacrificethislifeforthenextareemphatically not wanted. Instead these churches offer an umbrella ofloosely shared values that basically say good people try to improvethemselves, take care of family and friends, and help others along theway if they can. These churches claim that this is the realmessage ofChrist.Sin, damnation, and punishment are out; loving and acceptingyourself, increasing self-esteem, and taking responsibility are in.Manyhumanistic precepts have been incorporated into the new ChristianityandJudaism,whosemajordifferenceseemstobemorecomfortwithonesymbolsystemthananother.Thesedaysmanypeoplefeelfreetorevisetheirbeliefseclecticallytosuittheirneedsandproclivities.Forinstance,manywho call themselves Christians no longer see Christ asGod, butratherasagreatteacher.ManyCatholicsdivorce,usebirthcontrol,andlargely ignore the dictates of the pope, whom they consider old-fashioned.PollsfoundmostAmericansbelievedinsomekindofafterlife;fewbelievedinhell (Newsweek,March27,1989).OtherswhoalsostillthinkofthemselvesasChristiansorJewsbelieveinkarma/rebirth.A religion is aworldview and amoral system,with a theology thatexplainsand justifies them.Mostpeoplewhose religion ispartof theiridentityandrelationtocommunitycanholdontotheiridentityas,say,Christians, while being unconcerned about theology. But this cannotcontinueindefinitely;inorderforareligiontosurviveandpassonfromone generation to the next, it must have a theology that gives the

worldview some credibility. Even though the Catholic Churchdiscourages itsmembers from theological inquiry (it kept theMass inLatinuntilthemid-1960s),ithasawholeorder,theJesuits,devotedtoit.ThisisbecausetheChurchknowstheremustbeananswerforeveryquestion—reassuranceforeverydoubt.ShouldonewanttoremainaChristianandbelieveinkarma/rebirth,eventually one has to reconcile a separate monotheistic God with animpersonaluniversalforce(karma).DidGodcreatekarma?Itmusthave,since it creates everything; but havingdone so, isGod then subject tokarmaoriskarmasubjecttoGod?AndcanordoesGodinterferewithorchange karmawithin its creation? If God set up karma and thereafterleaves theworld alone,why pay any attention toGod?Or if God caninterferewithkarma,thenkarmaisnottheabsoluteprincipleitpurportstobe,sowhypaymuchattentiontoit?Thesearesomeoftheproblemsatheologythatwantedtoreconcilethetwowouldface.Itispossibletoreconcilethem,becausethemindcanreconcileanytwothingsifittrieshard enough. However, with some issues reconciling them becomessufficiently arcane and convoluted that both sides lose their form andforce.There are intrinsic problems in trying to revise an authoritarianworldview unless the revisions themselves become new authoritarianpronouncements,aswiththeProtestantReformation.TherevisionsofaCalvinorLutherwereconsideredGod-inspiredandnotreallyrevisions,butareturntoGod’sintent.HeretheBibleisstilltheultimateauthority,and the linebetween revisionismand fundamentalismblurs.When thebasic tenets of a religiousworldviewundergo revision, the question iswhoisdoingit,andunderwhatauthority?The impetus behind revisionism is to include social change whilepreservingasmuchtraditionaspossible.Inmoderntimes,socialchangehasbeenacceleratedby science anddemocratic ideals. Theworldwidepushofwomentoparticipateequallyinarenasofpowerisalsoshakingup the old order. It is through revisions incorporating new knowledgeandvalues that religionsevolve.Buddha,Christ,andMohammedweresocialreformerswhoserevisionsattemptedtoreformthecorruptionandinequitieswithin theprevailingorder.Buddhadidawaywith thecastesystem;Christbrought lovetoaharshwar-Godanddidawaywitholdethnictaboos;Mohammedbroughtlawandmoralregularitythatcurbed

abuse. Each of them was considered uniquely inspired and so theirwordsbecamethebasisofthenewauthority.Whenrevisionsgotothecoreofbeliefs,whatmust emerge is anewreligion,as itdidwith theabovethree.Whenrevisionstamperwiththebasicstructure,whatoccursispeople

tryingtoholdontotheiridentitywithoutbeingcertainofthefoundationof that identity. When do revisions cease being revisions of a basicworldview and instead become a different worldview using the samename?PeoplehavesaidthattheessenceofChristianityislove,andsoifyouareloving,youareaChristian.HowdoesChristianlovedifferfromBuddhistcompassionoranylove?Perhapsitdoesn’t,butthenwhycalloneselfaChristian?Atonetime,beingaChristianinvolvedbelievinginallormost(oratleastsome)ofthefollowing:

1.BeliefintheTrinityofGod,whichincludesatranscendentGodwhoisthecreatorofitall.

2.ThattheOldandNewTestamentsweredivinelyinspiredorrevealed,andhencearetheultimate authority behind Christianity. (Catholic traditionalists include the historicalbodyofchurchpronouncements.)

3.Humansarebornwithsomethingwrongwiththem(sin)andthusneedtobesaved.4. Christ was literally fathered by God through a virgin. The virgin birth was used toremoveChristandhismotherfromthecontaminationofsin(carnality).

5. As the son of God, Christwas uniquely and at least partially divine, andwas God’sprimarymessengeroftruth.

6.Godsentwhathelovedthemost,hisson,toearthtobehideouslytorturedtodeathtoenablepeopletoatonefortheirsins.Hewasbroughtbacktolife(resurrected)andthenascendedtohisfather’sside(heaven).FaithinChrististheonlydoorwaytosalvation(meaning eternal life in heaven). Some sects also add good works and obedience toChrist’sdictates.

7.Onlythesavedgotoheaven;othersgoelsewhere(hell,limbo,purgatory).

TherearepeoplewhothinkofthemselvesasChristianswhoquestionthe veracity of some, most, or even all of the above, whereasfundamentalists stillbelieve inmostorallof these tenets.With feworno points of intersection of belief between them,what similarities arethere to warrant using the word Christian for both groups, and whywouldtheywantto?Actually,mostfundamentalistsdonotwantto.Arguments about which, if any, of these tenets are necessary for

Christianity to remainChristianity,andalsohowfareachcanbebent,are in the realm of theology. It is within theology that modern

revisionists have difficulties. Certainty (absolute faith) is a key part ofwhatgivesareligionitspsychologicalstrength.ItismucheasiertohavefaithinwhatonethinksisthewordofGodthaninhumanrevisionsofit.A televised debate between a fundamentalist preacher and arevisionist clergyman specifically addressed issues around Biblicalinterpretation. A key controversy discussed was whether the Bible issexist.Whatstruckuswasnotthenatureorqualityoftheirarguments,whichwere, of course, totally predictable, but rather the demeanor ofeach participant. The fundamentalist preacher had an unlined face, ahappy smile, glib aphorisms such as “Don’t try to changeGod’sword;change yours instead,” that came effortlessly. In contrast, the otherclergymanhadanearnest,heartfeltexpression.Herewasamanawareofdeep ambiguities, but not easily able to reconcile them.Hepointed topassages thatwere blatantly sexist, but had a hard time showing thatGodwasnotsexist.AsaChristian,hecouldnotthrowoutthebabywiththebathwater;thatis,hecouldnotultimatelydenytheauthorityoftheBible. The problem is that when attempting to revise deep structures,throwingoutthebathwaterisnotenough.Theargument the fundamentalistministerusedoverandoveragain,whichheconsideredunassailable,wasthattheBibleisthewordofGodandany tamperingwith it ismerely thewordofman.He thenarguedthatoncehumansreinterpretGod,whatremainsishumansubjectivity,not God’s objectivity. The revisionist brought up “facts” andcontemporary moral issues to show the need for revisions. The factsinvolved accepted scientific knowledge, and themoral issues involvedmodern humanistic and democratic values such as treating womenequally. To adapt Christianity to them, he had to call the Bible themetaphoricwordofGod.Theproblemisthatmetaphorscanbemadetostandforprettymuchanythingonewants.Thefundamentalistradiatedcertainty,whilehisopponenthadanapologeticandtroubledmien.Thoughrevisionsdounderminethecertaintyofpronouncements,theystillbolsterthebasicworldviewbybeingunabletochallengeitdirectly.This handcuffed the revisionist, who was asked directly by thefundamentalistwhetherhebelievedtheBiblewasthewordofGod.Hesputtered around uncomfortably about it being “divinely inspired,”much to the gleeof his opponent.But obviouslynot all of it couldbe

divinelyinspired,ashepointedoutsectionshefeltwereblatantlysexistandwrong.Yethe couldnot ask the reallyhardquestions,which are:Canatext liketheBible,someofwhichisover3,000yearsold,beanappropriatefoundationforcurrentinteraction?Isitworthrevising,andwhatmakesitso?Catholicismdevelopedmechanisms that allowed for revisionswithin

certain limits,whilemaintaining certainty.TheChurchgave itself thatpowerthroughcouncilsthatdetermineddogma,andbymakingthepopeinfallible (having a direct line from God) on matters of faith andmorality.NowCatholicismhasaseriousschismbetweenmodernistsandtraditionalists.Theformerwantthechurchtoreviseitspositionaroundsuch issues as marriage and celibacy for the clergy, birth control,abortion, and an overall democratization of the church itself.Traditionalists are not only hardening around old dogma, but arethreateningthosewhodisagreeinpublicwithexcommunication.We view the movement of the Catholic Church to a more

fundamentaliststanceasinevitablebecausetherevisionsdemandedaresufficiently extreme that granting them would undermine the basicauthority and credibility of the Church. If one day birth control is amortal sin, and the next day it’s O.K., this could not help but makepeoplewonderhowseriouslytotakethewholething.Yet,birthcontrolisacryingneedworldwide.TheCatholicChurch’sstanceontheissueisanother tragic illustration of ideological uncaringness, wheremaintaining power and order through an ideology becomes moreimportantthantheeffectsoftheideology.

RevisionismandtheNeedforIdentity

WhyanyonewhonolongerbelievesinthespecialdivinityofChriststillwants to remain a Christian involves issues of identity, morality, andrelationtocommunity.Aprimarybondpeoplehavetoanyreligionisitsmoral system. One’s values are a large part of one’s identity and alsohowonerelatestocommunity.IfoneisaChristianorBuddhist,thentobeinacommunitythatsharesbasicvaluesisnotonlycomfortable,butbringsabasictrust,foroneknowswhattoexpectfromothersandhowtonegotiate.Amoral systemaffectsone’sday-to-day lifebycreatingacontextinwhichtooperate.With fundamentalists theirmoral system is extremely important, but

as a means to the end of personal salvation. It is the worldview thatguaranteessalvation,sotheyarenottolerantofanythingthatthreatensthe certainty of the worldview. This is why the essence offundamentalismis theneedforcertainty.Modernrevisionistsaremoreinterested inwho theyare in thisworld.Theyarewilling to reviseanoldworldviewand itsmorality tokeepa senseof identityandgroundfor stability inwhat has come to be a very shakyworld.WhenChristbecomes a symbol for universal love, and the Old Testament Godbecomes an immanent force in everything instead of a transcendentseparateentity,whatisbeingheldontoismorethanrootsandritual—itisamoralidentity,awayofstructuringone’spersonality.TosayI’maChristian really means I’m a good person who can be counted on tobehaveappropriately.The strength of fundamentalism lies in an authoritarianism that

groundsitsmoralityinwhatitconsidersabsolutetruth.Thebigproblemfor revisionists is how to show theirmorality is notmerely subjective,andthusarbitrary.Thisisdealtwithinthreemajorways:

1. Revisionists, too, return to the past and attempt to show historically that they arerevivingtheoriginalspiritoftheteachings.Theyalsotrytoshowthatthefounders,aChristorBuddha,caredmoreaboutpeoplethantheirideologies.Theimplicationhereisthatmuchofwhatisconsideredfundamentalbyfundamentalistsisreallytheresultofunhealthyearlyrevisions,whichsulliedtheoriginalspiritortruthofthefounder.

2.Inordertoproperlyunderstandthefounder’sorreligion’sstatements,revisionistsasserttheymust be placed in a historical context and reinterpreted in the light ofmodernfindings and perspectives. This includes considering the authority of sacred texts asbeingallegoricalandmetaphoric,notliteral.3. Revisionists keep the parts of a religion they can believe in and drop the parts theycannot.(AnexampleisdroppingChrist’sdivinityandviewinghimasagreatteacher.)Thisapproach isoftencombinedwithtakingappealingparts fromotherreligions—anactivity with much historical precedent that is called syncretism. It occurs whendifferentworldviewscomeintocontactandtheabsolutenessofeachbeginstoerode,asis increasingly the case now. There are people incorporating into Christianity suchdiverse elements as the mother-goddess; karma; cosmic unity, which implies God’simmanence;andnotionsofenlightenment,withChristasanenlightenedbeing.5

Theseapproachesalldilutetheauthorityoftheoriginalbeliefsystem,yetcanworkshorttermtokeepwantedvaluesintact.Butoverthelongterm,areligionmusthaveaworldviewstrongenoughtosustainitself.The problem for the revisionist is, what can establish the necessarycredibility?Thatis,fromwheredoesthefinalwordcomethatvalidatesnotonlyagivenworldview,butthesystemofmoralitythatflowsfromit?Cananauthoritarianworldviewbe revised in someway that isnotauthoritarian? What could another way be: an appeal to reason,intuition,commonsense,science,philosophy,orthesumtotalofhumanexperience?Thesearealllegitimateappeals,butcantheysupportsacredpronouncementswellenoughtokeepthemsacred?The question is, what is the bottom-line basis for one’s worldview?Theessenceofallauthoritarianreligionsisthedemandforfaithinthehigher authority they espouse. To move the basis to one’s ownintelligence or anything else changes everything. Modern attempts todemocratize essentially authoritarianworldviewsmust either fall shortoralter thembeyondrecognition.DoChristianseachget tovoteonorpersonally choose which of the above tenets of basic Christianity areneededtoqualifyasChristian?Canoneusearcheologicalfindingsoftheancient prevalence ofmother-goddesses to decree that God is female?Thoughthiscanbedone,whatisleftisnolongertheabsolutewordofGod,butratherhumanpreference.It is likewise impossible to eradicate authoritarianism from thereligioushierarchyitself.Whenthefoundationofbeliefisbasedontheassumption that truthcomes froma “higher” intelligencenotavailabletoordinaryfolk,thisnecessarilysetsupanauthoritarianhierarchy.Itis

immaterialwhether the higher intelligence comes from sacred texts oranenlightenedmaster.AreZenBuddhists tovoteforwhomtheirroshishould be? This would politicize the role, removing the sanctity andabsolutenessthattheauthoritarianstructureoflineagepurportstogive.We are truly sympathetic to those who cannot accept authoritarianpronouncements. Our examination of the inherent problems withinrevisionismaimsnottobolsterthefundamentalistposition,butrathertoshow the difficulties in trying to revise essentially authoritarianstructures bymaking them less so.Reinterpreting the old canwork aslongastheworldremainssufficientlysimilarthatrevisingtheessentialtenets enables them to remain at least somewhat pertinent. The now-existent world religions were constructed when accumulation viaagriculture, authoritarian hierarchy, and patriarchymoved the speciesinto its historical and still current ways of leveraging power. Theoperativevaluesbecameaccumulatingandexpanding,usingkillingandwar as the bottom line of power and ultimate method of problem-solving.Theauthoritarianreligionsandtheirmoralitiesthatevolvedandworkedintandemwiththeoldpoliticalordersjustifieddoingwhateverittooktomaintainpower.

What’satStake?

The struggle between the old order and the budding, unformed new,whichwe call themoralswars, is really betweenold cosmologies thatseparate the spiritual fromtheworldly,andpeople reaching foranewworldviewthatsupportsinfusingthespiritualintolife.Thisriftbetweentheoldandthenewunderliesthecontroversiesbetweenfundamentalistsandrevisionists,whoarebothundertheumbrellaofthesamereligion.Therevisionistsareatabasicdisadvantage,fortheyhavetotoleratethefundamentalists’ moral slurs, while fundamentalists have no need forsuchtolerance.Withinliberalismthereisatraditionoftolerance,especiallyreligious

tolerance.Whilefundamentalistsshowlittletoleranceforanythingthatfalls outside their beliefs, the liberal mind is usually compelled totolerate the fundamentalistswhomake themimmoralorevenevil.Weagree that people should be able to believe what they will withoutcoercion.Butrespectingpeople’srighttohavedifferingbeliefsdoesnotmean one must respect the beliefs themselves. Unfortunately, theconceptof religious tolerancehascometo includenotbeingcriticalofothers’beliefs.Toleranceonlyworkswell ifall theplayersplayby thesamerules.Whensometrytoforcetheirbeliefsonothers,howtolerantshouldonebeofthis?Theproblemwithtoleratingviewpointsthatarethemselves intolerant is their aim is to do away with tolerancealtogether.Thecultural tabooagainstcriticizingreligionexistspartiallybecause

religion is looked upon,with good reason, as being beyond reason. Inrealmsof faith,belief,oreven intuition,whatcriteriacan therebe forcriticism?Thetruthorfalsityofagivenworldviewmaynotultimatelybe provable. But what can be shown is whether it is authoritarian.Authoritarianism is present in much that is taken for granted, oftenincludingwhatisheldbysometobesacred.Theprescriptionthatwhatpeople hold sacred should not be criticized is itself unconsciouslyauthoritarian.Thesacredandtaboogotogether—inparticularthetabooagainstchallengingthesacred.Inourview,thesacredisformallymade

sacredpreciselytoprotect it fromcriticism,becauseitcannotstandonitsown.Toleranceneedstoberedefinedtoencouragediscoursethatcanquestionthevalidityandviabilityofanybeliefbaseduponitsimpactonthe world. This is especially needed when the stakes are high. Webelievethestakescouldnotbehigher.Historically, whenever a changingworld brought a rift between theold and new, the old eventually faded simply because it could notadequately incorporate the new into its framework. This took time,upheavals,andbloodshed.Ultimatelytheoldcouldnottriumph,simplybecause it was old. In this particular epoch the game is different.Humanityisnotonlyfacingtheneedtochange,itisfacinganecologicaltime clock for its survival. Now the old can win simply by impedingwhatever transformationsarenecessary longenoughfor the timeclocktorunout.AndalthoughthisvictorywouldbePyrrhic,wesuspectthatthosewithanapocalypticalmentalitywouldnotcare.To the extent that fundamentalism impedes change, there is goodreason to oppose it. To the extent that revisionists are bound by thesame authoritarian worldview and moral order, they legitimize thefundamentalists’ agenda of going back to moral purity. The focus offundamentalism is the salvation of the individual after death.Modernrevisionistswant to broaden their religion to include caring about thepresentandfutureoflifeonthisplanet.Theyareconstrainedbyhavingtorefurbishanessentiallyauthoritarianworldviewconstructedwhenthespecieswasnotatrisk.Inanoverused,overpopulatedplanet,planetaryvalues must somehow change from quantity to quality, fromaccumulation to preservation. Growing up as an individual involvesfacing one’smortality; growing up as a species involves realizing thathumanityismortal,too.Humansurvivalisnolongeragiven,anditwillonlybeprolongedifpeopleareabletoredirectwhatisdestructivetothespecies andplanetary systems.This requires amoralitybasednotonlyon the mortality of the individual, but also on the mortality of thespecies. Whether or not one believes in personal immortality, havingmoralitybasedonthisbeliefinsteadofonwhatpromotesviablelifeinthisworldisanindulgencethatisnolongeraffordable.1“From Animism to Polytheism” in “The Power of Abstraction: The Sacred Word and theEvolutionofMorality”discusseshowtribalanimisticworldviewswereafunctionofabalanceofpower between people and the world around them. With relatively little control over and

protectionagainstnature,achievingharmonywithnature’sforceswasnecessaryforsurvival.2On the intrinsic problems within the categories of good and evil, see “Satanism and theWorshipoftheForbidden:WhyItFeelsGoodtoBeBad.”3“Satanism” shows how satanism is the underbelly of monotheism—an extreme reactionagainsttheconstraintsofarepressivemorality.4See“TheSeductionsofSurrender.”5See “On Channeling Disembodied Authorities” for a contemporary example of syncretism:Theappealofanewchanneledreligiousframework,ACourseinMiracles, isthatitattemptstoblend Christian love with Eastern Oneness, although it does not adequately reconcile them.Instead, tomake itself credible, it relieson theassertion that its “truths”are channeledbyanunchallengeableandimpeccableauthority,thespiritofJesusChrist.

W

SatanismandtheWorshipoftheForbiddenWhyItFeelsGoodtoBeBad

hatisasatanist,andwhywouldanyonewanttobeone?Thisquestionwarrantsexaminationnotonlybecausedevilworship

and ritualized abuse have surfaced and become more overt, but alsobecauserespectedsegmentsofsocietyareusingtheideaofSatanasanexplanation for theworld’s ills. The Catholic Church has increased itsnumberofexorcists,thusfurtherlegitimizingtheconcept.AndaformerkeyU.S. officialwho headed the “War onDrugs” publicly blamed thespreadofcrack-cocaineonthedevil,ratherthanonthehopelessnessofpeople’slives(SanFranciscoChronicle,June12,1990).Thefocusofthischapter is not so much on satanism itself, but rather uses it as anextremeexampleof theallureandpowerof the forbidden.Guiltaside,most people have experienced enjoyment doing something theyconsidered wrong, possibly even immoral. The really interesting andrelevantquestioniswhyitsometimesfeelsgoodtobebad.InworshippingSatan,whatisonedoing?Oneiseitherworshippingan

entity, some force or power, or the symbolic representation of aprinciple.Satanism,then,isworshippingevilasasymbol,manifestation,spirit,archetype,orflat-outmetaphysicalpower.Whicheveritis,aboveall theword“Satan” refers toanabstract ideaofpure intentionalevil.Simplyput,satanismistheworshipofevilovergood,orelseitredefineswhatisordinarilyconsideredevilasthegood.OnemustrememberSatanasafigureorforcecomesoutoftraditional

Western religions. Satanism as a framework for activity involves aworldview that is the underbelly of Western religions and theirseparationofbehaviorintotwodistinctmoralcategories—goodandevil.ItisaconstructionofWesternmonotheismtoseparateGoddualisticallyfromeverythingelse.ThisworldviewsplitsexistenceintoGodandGod’screation; from this basic dualism all others flow. Abstracting out the

concepts of good and evil from life, then reifying andanthropomorphizing the two abstractions (God and Satan), is afoundation of Western fundamentalist religious cosmology. But ananthropomorphized forceof evil isnot limited to fundamentalism.Theofficial theologies of Catholicism, as well asmany Protestant, Islamic,andJewishsects,stillpromulgatebeliefinaforceofevilwhosepurposeissolelytoleadpeopleastray.SatanismisafoilforandcounterpointtothereligionsthatcreatedSatan.TheconceptofSatancomesfromacontextcontaininganimpeccablemonotheistic God that is the source and power behind all good. Apowerful fallenangel,whospitefully tries tosubvertgoodnessateveryturn, is used to explainwhy earth is less thanaparadise.Any successandpowergainedbythoseinhisclutchesisexplainedbyhispurporteddual role as both tempter and punisher—after death hemakes peoplepayforthepleasuresheseducestheminto.Historically, satanism has been associated with black magic,witchcraft,anddemonology.Thebasicunderlyingassumptionisthatbyassociatingwith,orgivingoneselfto,thepowersofevil,apersoncouldtosomeextentcontrolandmanipulatethatpower.Theritesandritualsfor summoning thedark forceswereoften activities thatweremorallyforbiddenandinvolvedbreakingtaboosaround—guesswhat?—sexandviolence.Old fertility rites and shamanistic or pagan healing practicesthat contradicted the power of organized religions have also beenlabeled satanic. But this chapter is not about the politics of religion—what religions do tomaintain power. Rather our interest iswhere theallureoftheforbiddencomesfrom.Leaving aside (for now) the issue of whether the evil that satanistsworshipisreallyevil,orwhethertheGodothersworshipisreallygood,what kind of universe do such conceptualizations imply? To reallyunderstandsatanismrequirestakinganexcursionintothenatureofgoodandevil.

GoodandEvil

Thewords “good” and “evil” are abstract symbols, each purporting todesignateaclassofactivitiesthatincludesnotonlytheconsequencesofactions,butalsotheintentionbehindthem.SothatifIintendgoodbutevilbefalls,Imightnotbeheldblameless;butneitherwouldIbecalledevil.Tobeevilthenistointendevil.Butthisisnotasobviousorsimpleas it sounds.Whatdoes itmean to intendevil—exactlywhat is it thatoneisintending?AccordingtotheOxforddictionary,“evil”hasthesameetymological

rootasthewords“up”and“over”;initiallytheprimarymeaningofevilwaseither“exceedingduemeasure”or“oversteppingproper limits.” Itgoesontodefinethecommonusagesoftheword“evil”intwoways:asthe“antithesisofgood,”oras“willinganddoingharm.”Definingevilastheoppositeofgoodiseasywhenthegoodisanacceptedgiven.So,ifanacknowledgedhigherpower laysout thegood, thendisobedience isevil.But the seconddefinitionofevilaswillfullydoingharm isnot sosimple, for it raises questions as to how much harm, and to what?Moreover, there is no agreement about what constitutes harm. Ispunishmentharmfulorgood?Shouldotherspeciesbeincludedinthesemoral considerations—is eating them O.K.? Is it worse to eat somespecies than others, and if so, why? For that matter, is self-destructivenessorsuicideaharmingthatisevil?HowaboutharmingtheEarthitself?Isvengeanceevil?Whatisproper—“Aneyeforaneye”or“Turntheothercheek”?Goodandevilasconceptsintendtodescribe,orsubsumeundertheir

bannerofmeaning,anendlessarrayofactionsandevents.Speculationsand assumptions about the early history of human experiences aredifficultenoughtomaintain;conjecturesaboutthehistoryofawordandthusaconceptareevenmorespeculative.Yettheconceptsofgoodandevilasdistinctcategorieshadeither tobeapartofhumanity’searliestlinguistic constructions or to have come about sometime later. In ourview, the concept of evil began when the discovery of agriculturebroughtaccumulationandearlyhierarchiesofpowerthatmadehuman

labor a commodity to use and abuse. Hierarchy brought a brutalitytoward insiders that didnot occurwithin tribal bands. In early natureworshipandpolytheism the spiritsandgodswereneitherwhollygoodnorbad,but capableof causingbothgood fortuneandharm.The twointerrelated concepts of good and evil evolved in tandem with theincreaseofreligiousabstractionthatprogressivelyseparatedconceptsofthe spiritual from nature. This split between the sacred and worldlyeventuallyhardenedtomutualexclusivityintheWestwithmonotheism;italsohardenedthecategoriesofgoodandevil.1Differentcultureshavedifferent ideasaboutwhat isevil.SomeevenclaimwholeculturescanbeevilandatoolofSatan,ascertainIslamicfundamentalists say of theWest. Arguments aside about what’s reallygood and evil, it’s safe to say that within a given culture, evil is agrouping of human activities that are morally forbidden. All cultureshave taboos, but breaking them is not necessarily considered evil.Ancestraltradition,ratherthanreligion,wasmostprobablytheoriginalsourceofmorality.Linkingtaboowithevil(andtheconcomitantnotionofsin)istheresultofreligionbecomingthefoundationofmorality.2Havinggoodandevilasseparatecategoriesmadeiteasiertocontrolpeople within hierarchies. The external controls of tribalism (groupapproval or censure, shame, and ostracism) became insufficient forcontrolling larger groups inwhich people did not know each other. Adualistic morality where the abstract concepts of good and evil areinternalized, coupledwith an omniscient Godwho spies on every act,shiftscontroltointernalmechanismssuchasfearandguilt.IntheEasttherelentlessandunforgivinglawofkarmafunctionsinthesamewayasanomniscientGod,rewardingorpunishingone’severyaction.Complexsocietiesneed somekindof internal controlmechanisms, and religionsbecametheirsource.Ever since society became stratified, religion has evolved in thedirectionofincreasingcontroloverpeoplebypromulgatingrenunciationandself-sacrifice.Goodandevilasmutuallyexclusivecategoriesmakeiteasier tohave a renunciate religion—when evil is spelled out, there issomethingclear-cuttorenounce.Whatislessclearisthatanyrenunciatemoralitymustalsobedualistic,andmustinvolvesomekindofsacrifice;otherwise what’s the big deal, why call it renouncing? Renouncingimpliestwothingsbydefinition—onemustrenounce(giveup,sacrifice)

one thing for something else that is presumed to havemoreworth. Arenunciate morality is also necessarily authoritarian, since anunchallengeableauthority isneededtospelloutwhat isgoodandbad.Within renunciate religions the sacred and sacrifice are always keyconcepts.Whenanythingismadesacred(higher),onecanalwaysjustifysacrificingwhat is not sacred (lower) to it. The social hierarchies thatsacrifice those lower to those higher utilizemoralities that justify thisthroughseparatingthesacredandprofane.3Whatoneshouldsacrifice,andtowhat,variesindifferentsystems,butunderneath all of them is a simple structure. Sacrifice involvessacrificingself-interest (which includespleasure, self-enhancement,andcarnal desires) for a perceivedhigher,more important interest.What’smore important could be the revealed dictates of an omniscient God;ideals of spiritual realization that negate the self; loyalty to ruler,country, clan, or family; or even an ethical utilitarian model such asJohnStuartMill’s“thegreatestgoodforthegreatestnumber.”Theissueis reallynotwhether theperceivedhigher interest is in facthigher,orwhethersacrificeinanyparticularinstanceisorisnotappropriate.Theaimhereissimplytoshowhowrenunciatemoralitiescometodefinethegood as renouncing self-interest; and furthermore, that the abstractcategoriesofgoodandevilbecomeinternalizedinthehumanpsycheastheselflessandtheselfish.Evil is on the far end of the spectrum of self-centeredness, whilesaintliness is on the far end of being selfless. It is not that all self-centeredness is considered evil, only the extremes. (Catholics dodistinguishbetweenmortalandvenalsins,asdoparentsbetweenbeingreallybadandmerelynaughty.)Evilisusuallytooextremeaconcepttobe a useful standard in daily life.Nevertheless,most of us as childrenhavebeenconditionedtotheideathatbeingbadmeansdisobeyingtherulesandbeing selfish,whilebeinggoodmeansobeying the rulesandputtingothersfirst.Eventhosewhoeventuallyeitherquestionorchangetherulesusuallykeepthebasicdistinctionbetweentheselflessandself-centered. When people judge others to be morally lacking, it almostalwaysinvolvessomeperceivedaspectofself-centerednessintheother;likewise, when people judge themselves as not being morally goodenough, it isbecause theydonotmeet theirownstandards for selflessbehavior.

TheProblemofEvil

Tobe credible, all religions have somehow to explain the existence ofpain,cruelty,violence,unfairness,andsuffering.Theconceptofanevilforce initially offers an easy answer. But once evil is used as anexplanation,itcontainsitsownproblemsthatforcereligiousapologiststobecomebothconvolutedandarcane.Theproblemofevilsimplyputisthis:doesevil(howeverdefined)existintheuniverse,andifso,whyisit here and where did it originate? Evil is the bane of all religions,particularly those that want the deity to be both the first cause (theoriginator of it all) and yet untainted by anything negative. This isespeciallytrueofWesterntranscendentreligions.In any monotheism that sees God as not only the creator of

everything,butasallgood,wise,andpowerful, theproblem is this: IsevilanindependentpowerorisitinsomefashionapartofGod’smasterplan? If it is part ofGod’splan, andGod ispuregoodness,howcouldevilbepureevil?Or,ifevilisindependentofGod’sgoodness,wheredidit come from?DidGodcreateakindofFrankensteinmonster thatgotoutofhand?ButthistakesawayfromthepowerofGod.Anall-powerfulGod had to create everything, including evil, by definition. And so tokeep God purely good, certain sects (decreed to be heresies) triedlimiting God’s power. But this, too, puts monotheism in question, forhow could a God with limited power have created everything?GnosticismandManicheism, like theirpredecessorsZoroastrianismandMithraism, saw good and evil on equal footing, with the strugglebetween the two the cosmicbattle at the coreof existence.Both goodandevilaregivenautonomouspower,andbothexistwithinhumanity.WithinChristianity,thisconceptualizationwaslabeledaheresyandjustwould not do, since it essentially did away with monotheism. If twocosmicforcesareequal,therecannotbejustoneGod.ThedifficultyinreconcilingGod’sperfectgoodnessandomnipotence

withevilisthateitherGodwantstoeradicateevilbutcannot,soisnotomnipotent,orGodisabletobutdoesnotwantto.Forthelattertobetrue and God still to be all-good, God must have a good reason for

creatingandallowingevil.ThesearchforGod’smotiveledtothestockanswer to theproblemof evil:Godcreated it inorder togivehumansfreewill,whereinpeoplecouldmorally choosegoodoverevil.Humanexistence is thusviewedas amoralityplay to test and then rewardorpunish the players. Why God would want to do this also poses theinterestingquestionofwhetherSatan“fell”ofhisownfreewillorwaspushedbecauseGodwantedandneededadevil?The“moralityplay”solutioncannotstandupundercloseexamination.Eternity is a long time.Tobedamnedeternally for succumbing to thepowerfultemptationsthatGod(throughhisvehicleSatan)putforthasatest again paints a picture of a harsh, vengeful God who gives theultimatepunishmentfordisobedience.Whatcaringparentwouldsotestand punish a child? Also, to postulate that God created evil (or to bekinder,allowedit)inordertogivehumanitythefreedomtochoosedoesnotexplainwhyGodmadeitmucheasierforsometochoosegoodthanothers.Whysomearegivenaneasiercontext(lovingparents)tochoosegood in than others (severely emotionally deprived children) is neveradequatelyaddressed.ThisisanespeciallypoignantissueinChristianitybecauseyouonlyhaveonechancetodoitright.Calvinists pushed the argument further in asking if God knewbeforehandthechoicesonewouldmake.Forthem,tosaynowouldputalimitonthepowerandknowledgeofGod.So,ifGodknewbeforehandwhat choiceonewouldmake, ithad tohavebeenpredetermined.Theproblemherewaswhysomanypeoplewerepredetermined tobebad.TheCalvinistsolutionwastoemphasizethatmankindisessentiallyevil(originalsin)andcouldonlybesavedbythegraceofGod.Whatwasnotproperly addressed iswhy some receivedgraceand somedidnot; andwhyGodwould construct awhole species thatwas born initially evil,and concern himself with whom to save and whom not to. Beingomniscient, there could not even be any mystery in watching themorality play unfold, for Godmust have known from the get-go whowerethefewelecthewasgoingtosave,andthathewascreatingalargemajority tobedamnedeternally.This seems likeanoddpastime foraGodwhoisallgood.Fromahumanstandpoint,thisdoesnotseemlikeaverynicethingtodo.Oneisleft,asusual,withthewhyofGod’smotivesbeingbeyondthekenofhumanity.LookingattheworkingsofGod’screationwasenough

toproducea commonstancewithinatheism,which is: If therewereaGodwhocontrolstheworld,itwouldbethedutyofeverymoralhumanto despise it—given the success that violence, callousness, and greedbring.MonotheisticdualismthatseparatesGodfromeverythingelsepresentsanalmostwhimsicalpictureofaGodwhoisasupremeegoistcreatingthe universe for the express purpose of being worshipped—rewardingthosewho do it properly (according to his rules) and punishing thosewho don’t. That this is reminiscent of all authoritarian power is noaccident, forauthoritarian secularpowerusesanauthoritarian religionwithitssacredsymbolismsanditsmoralitybasedondutyandsacrificeto justify itself.ThequestionofwhetherGodcreated theauthoritarianform(asfundamentalistsbelieve),orwhethertheformprojectedaGodtojustifyitself,isnottrivial.WhenGodispresentedastheparagonofgoodness,somethingmustbemadetheparagonofevil,butthe ideaof therebeinganevil incarnatebringsitsownquestions:WhatisSatan’smotiveforbeingevil?IsheameretoolforGod’splanorisheevilbychoice?IsevilSatan’sessentialnature or is it a spiteful reaction for being thrown out of heaven? IsSatan being punished for being Satan or is he having a good time,enjoying himself as hemesses things up?One can understandwhy hetemptspeople,butwhensuccessfulwhydoeshepunishthem?Actually,ifwhatthegamewerereallyaboutisabattleforsouls,Satanwoulddofar better without the bad press of hell. If in punishing sinners he isdoingwhatGodwants,he isnotbeingGod’s adversary, justhisdupe.Oneargument is thatSatan feels sobadabouthis relation toGod thathisonlypleasurescomefrommakingothersfeelbad,too.Sohetemptswithforbidden(byGod)pleasures,andthen“getsoff”bytorturingthosehe seduced—he is thus the ultimate sadist. But then one gets back tohow an all-good God could create a being of pure evil with noredeeming qualities. Satan is monotheism’s attempt to get an all-powerfulGodoffthemoralhook.ButwhatcannotbeescapediseitherSatanisdoingGod’swillorheisn’t.Catholicism’s power is linked to forgiving sin and protecting peoplefrom evil. To do this, sinmust be real, asmust be some externalizedform of evil. The Catholic Church, in designating official exorcists,acknowledgesSatanasaforcetobereckonedwith;atthesametime,it

designates itself as the protecting power. Satan functions asmonotheism’sgarbagecanintowhichallthebadthingsthathappencanbethrown.UsingSatanasanexplanationfortheillsoftheworldstopsfurtherprobing.Interestingly,Satanisalsoblamedforanyquestioningoffaith.Lucifer

was so named because he was the “bringer of light,” that is, reason.Lucifer is portrayed as the silver-tongued devil who uses reason toseducepeoplebyconvincingthemeitherthatevildoesn’texistorit’sagood thing to do. Every sophisticated closed system of thoughtconstructswaysofdisarmingchallenge.Thisparticularploy isairtight,statinganyargumentpowerfulenoughtoquestionfaithisbydefinitionaconstructionofSatan.Whatisreallyinvolvedisacirculardefense.Anauthoritarian system of belief is put forth, and then an authoritarianpremise from within the system is used to make the system itselfimpregnable. The premise is that there is a devilwho is smarter thanhuman reason, thus human reason cannot be trusted to question thesystemofbelief.Shouldonebuyintothis,whatresults is fearingone’sownintelligence.4Easternbeliefsthatasserttheunityofallbeing(Oneness),wherespirit

or God is immanent, frame the nature of evil differently, in a moresophisticated way that avoidsmany of the above problems. Hinduismplaces evil in the category of maya or illusion, the illusion ofseparateness; Buddhism sees evil as ignorance. It defines ignorance asthinkingthatoneis,orhas,aselfthatcontinuallyneedsprotectingandenhancing. Close analysis shows that the concepts of illusion andignorancearenotessentiallydifferent.Bothconceptsattributeeviltotheillusionofbeingaseparateself.Eastern dualism takes on a subtler form thanmonotheism, inwhich

thesplitbetweengoodandevil issoftened,butnoteradicated. Insteadof dividing the cosmos into two entities, God and God’s creation, theEast creates two levels inorder to support itsowndualistic renunciatemorality.This covert dualismconsists in constructing a spiritual realmsupposedly beyond duality and beyond good and evil, and a realm ofillusionorignorancewheregoodandevilplaythemselvesout.However,spiritualityandgoodnessbecomeidentifiedwiththehigherlevel(unity),andeviloperatesoutofthelowerlevelthatdeniesorisunawareofthisunity.ThisiswheremostEasternconceptionsbreakdownbecausethey

donotmakeunity trulybeyondgoodand evil, but rathermake it thesource of only goodness. As with monotheism, the world becomes amoralityplay constructed so thatpeople can learn tobebetter.But towhat purpose? And that is the rub. The big question is why is thereillusionandignoranceinthefirstplace?5The basic question for any cosmology remains: why has the wholething been constructed in this fashion?Christians say it is becauseweare born in sin. Buddhists say it is because we are born to sufferingthrough ignorance. Hindus say it’s because we are born at all(individuated and separate). Throughout all of this, the implication isthat people deservewhat they get.Whatever else they serve, this is amajor function of the concepts of both original sin and karma. Totrivialize evil by declaring it illusory and making ultimate realitysomethingbeyondit issoothingonlyifnotproperlyexamined.Humanbeings still kill, maim, exploit, and abuse each other with exquisiteingenuityandcasualjustifications.

SatanismasanAvenuetoPower

MonotheismviewsGodandnatureasessentiallydifferent;thusitsbasicdualism ismore conscious and extreme than in theEast. This leads tohard dualistic categories such as heaven and hell, God and the devil,salvation and damnation, and of course, good and evil. Satanism is aparticularly Western phenomenon precisely because monotheismconstructs themost extreme separation between good and evil, whichtranslates into a rigid division of the sanctioned and forbidden. Weconsider the essence of satanism to be the worship of the forbidden,through worshipping a personified force that sanctions the forbidden.Satanism is a reaction against themoral imperativesof amonotheisticGodthatdefineabsolutegood,andagainstthedemandstorepressbothsexuality and carnality.When spirit is abstracted from nature and thebody,what is denied or denigrated is the fact that a human being is,amongother things,ananimal.This is ironic,sinceanimalsother thanhumans do not create abominations. Making the body lowly justifiesdominating and repressing it, just as making nature lowly justifiesexploiting it. Worshipping evil can only take place in a culture thatmakes “thegood”obtainable solely through renouncingadeeppartofwhat it is to be human. Thus temptation is the mirror image ofrenunciation—the more one renounces an aspect of being human(sexualityforexample),themoretemptationthereis.Worship involves awe. Significantly, what brings awe is a sense of

being in touchwith a greater or unknown power. So it is possible toworship nature, beauty, a guru, a ruler, as well as a deity. Inworshipping Satan or God, the dynamics are similar. Since worshipalone generates the feelings, whether the power actually exists or notdoesnotmakemuchdifference.ThoseworshippingGreek,Aztec,oranygodsallreceivedbasicallythesameexperience.Theobject,force,personor abstraction, whatever it is that is being worshipped, is necessarilyperceivedashavingpower—thepowerto,insomefashion,affectone’slife.Onereason theobjectofworship is soperceived is thatwheneverthe person either physically or mentally contacts it, emotions change.

This is often accompanied by a state of surrender that has its ownemotionalfield.6Worshipisnotsimplyaone-directionalactivitywherethereisoutputfrom the worshiper, and that’s it. What loops back are feelings ofparticipating in,andidentifyingwith,ahigherpower,whichtranslatesintofeelingmorepowerfuloneself.Ifworshippinghadnoeffectonhowtheworshiper felt,worshipwouldnot be long-lived. It is in largepartthe change in emotion that verifies and reinforces the belief that theobjectorideabeingworshippedbothexistsanddeservesit.Historicallymonotheism supplanted polytheism because its Godwasmorepowerful. It raisedGod toahigher levelof abstraction,giving itmoregeneralandthusinclusivepowers(omnipotenceandomniscience).Religions promote the power of God but downplay the relationship ofworshiptopowerbyemphasizingGod’sgoodness,justice,ormercy.YetmuchofprayerisgearedattryingtogetGod’spoweronone’sside—orgiving thanks that it is. In stark contrast, satanists blatantly worshipSatantoincreasepower.7InworshippingGod,oneisgivingallegiancetotheimageonehasofGod. One tries to live by the rules believed to be God’s dictates forhumanity, and of course, one hopes to reap the benefits of doing so.There are many worldly benefits of aligning with an accepted higherpower that has specific rules for living flowing from it. Two key onesthatarenotunrelatedare certaintyandpower.Certaintyaboutwhat’srightandtruecanbeusedtodirectormanipulatethoselesscertain,andtojustifycoercion,aswellastoeliminateinternalconflict.8Worshiping Satan is similar to worshipping God in that one is alsoaligning with a perceived higher power, except the power representswhat isconsideredevil insteadofgood.Theabstractconceptofevil iseasily anthropomorphized into a satanic figure because intention isnecessaryforeviltobeevil.Intentionimpliesbothwillandsomeformofconsciousness.WhatkindofconsciousnessdoesSatanrepresent?TheusualimageSatanbringstomindisofanentityorforcewhoseexistenceinvolves leading people astray, and gleefully tormenting them whensucceeding.DoesSatanenjoybeingevil,ishehavingfun;orishebeingpunishedandthussufferingfrombeingevil?Thisisnottomakelightofa deep issue, because underneath these conundrums is an ultimatelyimportantquestion:doesbeingbadfeelgood?

Whengoodandevilareconceptualizedinaneither/orwaycreatingadualisticframeworkformorality,beingbaddoes,orcan,feelverygoodindeed. This is the lynchpin around which satanism revolves.Interestingly, one finds in such colloquial expressions as “you luckydevil,” “handsome devil,” “devilish grin,” and in the outlaw hero, acultural ambivalence toward not only the devil archetype, but towardbeingbadornaughty.Beingbadhasslyappealandisoftenviewedwithindulgence. This is because what is considered bad, thus forbidden,includes carnal and self-centered aspects of being human. As at leastsome of what is forbidden is life-enhancing and unhealthy to repress,releasingthesestifledaspectsofoneselfallowspeopletofeelmorealive.In satanism, worshipping the forbidden allows these feelings suchextremeexpressionandreleasethattheybecomeassociatedwithpower.It is our contention that what satanism actually involves is a bleakattempt to generate personal power—actually power over thoseensnared(oftenchildren).Peoplebecomesatanistsbecause they find itmore attractive than whatever beliefs or allegiances they previouslyheld.Hereisapicture,ascenario,ofhowthiscouldwork—inordertoshowtheappealofsatanism,wewillbrieflyplay“devil’sadvocate.”Takeachildbroughtuptobelievethelustsofthebodyaredirtyandwrong;thatanomniscientGodspiesonandjudgesitseverylittlesneakymeanthoughtandaction;thatitisborninsin(originalsin)andcanonlybe saved by accepting the dictates of this God’s rules. The child, forwhateverreasons,cannotsufficientlyrepresswhatislabeledbad,andisthus labeled bad. These children are easilymade to feel something isdeeplywrongwith them. In fact, children in general aremade to feelbadaboutthemselvesforbreakingrulestheyhadnosayinestablishing.It can seem to children thatwhat’s fun is forbidden.Often these rulesdeny them both the legitimacy of their animal feelings and theresentmentsthatcomefromsuchabasicdenial.Intheirfailedstruggletobegood,manychildrenactout inways thatmake itdifficult togetsocialrewards.Whenpeoplebelievetheyarefundamentallybad,theyarevulnerabletosatanicbeliefs.Therearesatanistswhoputforththiskindofmessage:“You’vebeensoldabillofgoodsmeanttokeepyoudown.IfGodrulestheworldandmakes therules,why is it that thosewhogetaheadarethosewhobreaktherules?Youweretoldthatifyoubreaktherulesyou

will go to hell. Look around—most people’s lives are already hell,includingyours.ThesecretisthatitisSatanwhoreallyrulestheworld.Soifyouwanttohavepower,dowell,andsucceed,allyouhavetodoisgorighttothesource—don’tfoolaround—worshipevilitselfandyou’llhavetheedge.”Asproof, all the visiblemoral contradictions andhypocrisies canbe

pointedout: how the church extols povertybut lives in splendor; howit’s really the “bad guys” who have much of the power in the worldthroughlies,corruption,violence,andgeneratingfear.Satanistscansaythesehavealwaysbeentherealforceunderneathbusiness,government,orthodox religion, and organized crime—the four pillars of earthlypower.Theycan furthersay it ismight thatmakesright in thisworld;andthatcontrarytotheliesoneisfed,itisevilthattriumphsintheend.(Toparaphrasea linebyBobDylan—Steala littleandtheyputyou injail, steal a lot and theymake you king.) Sowhere good and evil arepolarized,satanistscanmakeastrongempiricalcasethatevilistherealpower in theworld. Satan, after all, has been traditionally called “theprinceoftheworld.”It must be remembered that satanism as a cult, a belief system, a

religion, cannot itself be ultimately divorced from the religiousframeworkthatabstractlyseparatedgoodandevil,andthengaveevilapersonalizedname—Satan.Satanismisworshippingthedarksideofthissplit—“theprinceofdarkness.”This canbe seen in satanic rituals, themore conservative of which are structured excursions into whatorthodox religion deems blasphemous. The “black mass” is geared atbreaking taboos. It reactively reverses and inverts the rituals of theaccepted mass. Even in the more extreme cults, the ritualized use ofblood sacrifice, torture,nudity, sexual rites,orgies, excrement,and thelike are all examples of theworship of the forbidden. The specifics ofsuch grotesqueries and cruelties are not the issue here; rather we areinterestedinpeople’sattractiontothemforthatistherealproblem.Belief in satanism spawns cults that display many of the dynamics

covered inPartOneof this book. Surrendering to thewill of Satan asdefinedbyaleaderisnottoodifferentfromsurrenderingtoaguruortothe will of God as defined by a given spiritual authority. Thepsychologicaleffectsofsurrenderareprettymuchthesameineachcase.There is, however, a real difference between satanic cults and others.

Other groups that accept the polarized split between good and evilostensiblytrytoeliminateorminimizethenegativepole.Manydothisbypromotingsacrificeofworldlyinterestsanddesires.In contrast, the motives underlying satanism are directly related topower—powerinthisworld. Inaligningwithevil(thedarksideofthepole),whatpeoplearedoingisaligningwiththeirperceptionofwherereal power lies. Satanism tells people that much of what’s consideredbad is reallygood todo.The taboosand constraints around “badness”are lifted all of a sudden. Release from that suppression can containtremendous energy. Satanic practices are geared at creating greatemotional release, even frenzy, throughbreaking taboos.All this is ontopofthenormalculticgroupenergytappedintothroughritual,sharedbelief,andsurrender.Thisenergyfeelslikepower—whichseemstobeaconfirmationofthetruthofworshippingSatan.It is therelease thatcomes fromactingout the forbidden that is thekeytosatanism.Thisistruenotonlyinthemoreextremeabusivecults,but also in themore sanitizedmiddle-class versions.What is it that isforbidden? It is interesting howmany of the rites involve excesses ofcarnality—of bodily functions. Then too, there is the affirmation ofpersonal greed and the lust for power. Satanism elevates “sin” as thedoorway to power. For those whose psyches have been crippled byinternalizingharshconceptionsofsin,thereactivependulumswingfromsuppressing the forbidden toworshipping itdoes indeed feel likegreatpower.

TheDividedSelf:GoodandEvilInternalized

The cosmic battleground between good and evil (God and Satan) notonly dualistically divides reality, but creates a division within thepsyche. Thus the battle continues on an individual basis between theaspect of oneself that is labeled good (the giving, loving, cooperative,compassionate, altruistic elements) and the aspect labeled bad (thedifferent expressions of self-centeredness). Becoming a satanist is onewayofendingthebattle—aneasierwaythanbecomingasaint.9“Thedevilmademedoit.”Behindthisstatementliesaworldviewin

which an evil spirit (or spirits) can come in and take control over, orpossess, a person. The idea of “possession” involves being under thecontrolof anexternal,malevolent force thatbendsyou to itswill. Forthosewhothinktheyarepossessed, itdoes indeedfeel likesomealienforcehastakenover,makingthemdoforbiddenthings.Butpossessionisjust another extreme example of having a rigidly compartmentalizedpsyche,adividedself.The statements “Thedevilmademedo it” and “My addictionmade

medoit”haveasimilarring;thelatter,inourview,isasecularversionofpossession.Itisnotthatpeopleconsciouslyadoptsuchbeliefsinordertogetawaywiththings.Possessionandaddictionarestructurallysimilarinthattheybothallowthesuppressedandforbiddenaspectsofoneselftocomeoutinawaythatcanbemoreeasilyforgiven,bothbyoneselfandothers.Byexternalizinganddis-identifyingfromthetabooactivity(makingit“notme”),adoorwayopensthatpermitsonetoactout theforbiddenwithoutinterferingwithone’sself-imageofbeingessentiallya“good” person. This occurswhen the split is so deep and unconsciousthat the part of the person doing the “nasties” does feel truly alien.Blame and responsibility are thus externalized and projected ontosomething else. Then too, there is the tragic explosion where a mild-mannered “nice” person goes berserk, usually killing others and thenhimself. For us going berserk is another sign of a rigidlycompartmentalizedandrepressedpsycheseekingrelease.

Thereleasethatcomesfrombeing“bad,”breakingtherules,oractingout taboos is not limited to satanism. Satanism is but an extremeexample of how a divided human being tries to deal with internalconflict by giving ascendancy to what is defined as bad. This isparticularlyappealingifbeinggoodhasnotpaidoff.Inourobservation,many people livewith varying degrees of this splitwithin themselves.Herelifebecomesabattlegroundforcontrolbetweenthe“good”orso-calledhigher self, and the “bad”or lower self.The innerwarbetweenhighlyconditioned“good”and“bad”compartmentsmayseemanoverlysimplisticmodel,butitisnomoresimplisticthanitssource—auniversedividedintogoodandevil,Godandthedevil.Perhaps the most bizarre example of compartmentalization is thepsychopathology referred to asmultiple personality disorder, inwhichonebodyseemstobecarryingaroundanumberofdistinctpersonalities.Someof themaresometimescognizantof theexistenceof someof theothers. The drama within this person becomes “Who is in control?”Interestingly,one“personality”rarelyholdsanotherinhighesteem.Theone constant in all cases of multiple personality seems to be that theperson was severely abused and traumatized as a young child. Theseverityofabusewassoextremethattheadultoradultsinvolvedwouldbe classified as deranged. Children so treated by significant adultscannothelpbut feel that there issomethingfundamentallywrongwiththem,andthattheysomehowdeservewhattheyaregetting.Theadultsareprobablyputtingoutthismessageaspartoftheabuse—“I’llbeatthedeviloutofyou.”The resulting fragmentation of personality into distinct and separatevoices with no overall integration can act as a self-protective survivalstrategy.It’sthewaypeoplewithmultiplepersonalitieslearnedtosafelyexpress different parts of themselveswithout having to be responsiblefor any of them. In order to have such extreme fragmentation, themessagesgivenabouthowtobe (that is,howtobe“good”)had tobenot only contradictory, but impossible to achieve. There was nothingthese people could do to satisfy their abusers. We look at multiplepersonalitiesasyetanotherwayofgivingupontryingtobe“good”—inthis case by letting go of the integrating aspect of the mind thatremembers, identifies with, and evaluates what the organism does.Although compartmentalization to this degree is relatively rare, the

phenomenon itself is not. It is most likely to occur whenever peopleinternalizevaluestheycannotliveupto.Folkwisdomhasintuitedthis,asshownbytheadage“Don’t tell therighthandwhat the lefthand isdoing.”

TheDarkSideofMonotheism

Satanismandpossessionbyevilspiritsarebutextremeexamplesoftheunderbellyofmonotheism’srenunciatemoralsystem—asystemthataskspeople not only to sacrifice this life for the next, but puts the highestvalue on the purity of selfless behavior. The self-centeredness and thecarnalitythatarepartofbeingananimal,ifnotmadeout-and-outevil,are made into something to repress and transcend. It is this artificialpolarization between spiritual selflessness and carnal self-centerednessthatisatthebottomofinnerfragmentation.Thegreatfear,ofcourse,isthatiftheforbiddenwerenotsuppressed,

the base nature of humanity (whether original sin, callous socialDarwinism,orgreedyme-firsters)wouldreign.Itistruethatifchildrenarenotbroughtupwithlove,andifpeoplearenottreatedwell,theyarevery likely to take it out on those around them unless constrained byfearorcoercion.Theoldauthoritarianmoralitieskeptpeopleinlinebybuildingself-mistrust.Thiswasdonebycreatinganinnerbattlebetweengoodandevilwhereinonecouldonlybecomegoodbysurrenderingtotheauthoritywhotoldyouwhatgoodis.Thatthisisnotworkingoughtto be evident. Try telling a boy in the ghetto whose options arebecomingacrackdealerorashoeshineboythathebettermaketherightchoiceorhewillgotohell.Hemayfeellikeheisalreadyinhell.ThebattlebetweenanirreproachableGodandanevilSatancreatesa

symbol system that polarizes thoughts and behavior into moralcompartmentsthatpeoplecanonlyfitintobydenyingessentialpartsofthemselves. The ensuing struggle, as the denied or suppressed aspectsseek somekind of expression, necessarily breeds self-mistrust and self-condemnation.Fromself-mistrustpeoplelooktoanauthoritytofindouthow to be. This makes controlling them easy. Surrendering to anauthorityisyetanotherwayofattemptingtoendtheinnerbattle.Thesadoutcomeofall this is thatpeopleremainchildren lookingoutwardforverification—beingwillingtofollowthelatestfad,fashion,savior,orcharismaticleaderinthehopeoffeelingwhole.Satanismisanextrememanifestationofthismoregeneraldistortionbroughtaboutbydividing

theself.The basic crisis on the planet today ismoral, involving how peopletreat each other and the planet. The old symbol systems that polarizegoodandevil,thesacredandthesecular,spiritandnature,theselflessand self-centered, created a division within human beings that led torigid mental compartments. A truly whole person is one who canintegrate the diversities within being human without denying any ofthem.Justas“good”peopleattempttodenythecravingsoftheanimalwithinthem,satanistsmustdenytheirempatheticcaringaspects.Mental compartments easily justify hierarchical social compartments—caste and class, haves and have-nots, good guys and bad guys.Communism as a symbol system tried to eliminate only socialcompartments,butfailed.Thefailurewaspartiallybecauseself-sacrificewasstillmadethehighestgood,withthedifferencebeingonlyinwhatonewassacrificingto.Incommunismonesacrificestotheabstractideaof the supposed collective good, the state. It at first seemedrevolutionary,but itwas still stuck in theoldmorality thatmade self-sacrifice the highest virtue. Regimes used this ideal to justify theirblatant,heartless,andcorruptexerciseofpower.Asasecularideology,communismdidnothave the luxuryof promisingpeopleotherworldlyrewards. Thus it was a renunciate experiment whose results couldactually be seen. Its failure and the misery it wrought should not beminimized or forgotten, especially because religious renunciateworldviewscannotbesotestedgiventhatthere isnogoodtest fortheafterlife. Religions too historically engendered their own on-goingmiseriesandextremereactions—satanismbeingbutone.10The ethical symbol systems of recorded history reflect the essentialpower structure of recorded history: authoritarian hierarchy.Unchallengeableauthoritiesat thetopof thehierarchymakethisworkby delineating who is to sacrifice what to whom. A different kind ofsymbolsystemformoralityisnecessarythatcanviewthealtruisticandthe egotistical as not only each being needed to define the other, buteachonlyhavingmeaninginthecontextoftheother.Caringforothersisanaturalhumanexpressionthatcannotbeultimatelyfragmentedofffromcaringforoneself.Amoralitythatdoesnotpolarizethetwowouldallowpeopletobemoreintouchwithandexpresswhatisappropriate,without being distorted by a compartmentalized psyche. The

perspectivesofferedinthisbookdonotmakesacrificeavirtueinandofitself,anddonotcategoricallydividetheself-centeredfromtheselfless.Itisbecauseofthisdivisionthatsooftencorruptionliesbehindthefaceofrighteousness,andbehindthefaceofGodlurksSatan.1See “The Power of Abstraction: The Sacred Word and the Evolution of Morality” on theevolutionofthissplitandhowitgavereligioncontrolofmorality.2“Religion,Cults,andtheSpiritualVacuum”containsaconcisestatementonthelinkbetweenreligion and morality; “The Power of Abstraction” traces the four major stages of religiousabstractionandtheir linkwithmorality.“TheRootsofAuthoritarianism”(asectioninControl)alsodescribesthegradualethicizingofreligionwherebyitbecamethefoundationofmorality.3“Religion”(PartOne)and“DualismandRenunciation”in“Oneness,Enlightenment,andtheMystical Experience” broadly describe the nature of renunciate religion and morality. “ThePowerofAbstraction”showsthehistoricallinksbetweenreligion,morality,sacrifice,andsocialpower.4See“GuruPloys”and“TheAssaultonReason”onhowauthoritarianclosedsystemsdisarmcriticalthought.5“Oneness”showsinmoredetailthewaystheOnenessideologyhidesitsdualism.6“TheSeductionsofSurrender”describeshowsurrendertoanyauthoritylikewisehasitsownpowerfuldynamics,nomatterwhoorwhatissurrenderedto.7“ThePowerofAbstraction”showstherelationshipbetweenpowerandreligiousabstraction.8See“Religion”andin“FundamentalismandtheNeedforCertainty.”9See“WhoIsinControl?TheAuthoritarianRootsofAddiction”forananalysisoftheinternalsplit,addictionbeinganotherexpressionoftheresultinginnerbattle.10“Communism” in Control, analyzes its attempt to build a new social system throughpoliticizingandcoercivelyusingtheoldrenunciatemoralityofself-sacrifice.

T

WhoIsinControl?TheAuthoritarianRootsofAddiction

he fears surrounding addiction, whether for oneself or others,involve being self-destructively out of control. Fearing addiction

in oneself is really fearing oneself. This chapter explains self-destructiveness not as something inherent in the nature of the animal,but rather as amanifestation of amoral order that imposes unlivablevalues. As it presents a different, somewhat radical framework, this isdoneascarefullyasweknowhowbyfirstbuildingafoundationforourpointofview.Sincethestruggleforcontrolwithinaddictionispresentedhereasaproductofadivided,conflict-drivenself,theoriginandnatureof this inner division are shown before discussing the dynamics ofaddiction.Webelieve that shedding some light on thephenomenonoffeeling out of control can significantly impact the way some peopleconceiveofand thus react towardaddiction.Wehope thosewilling totake this excursion will glean another point of view about self-destructiveness that offers the possibility of becoming awhole humanbeingwhoisnotinternallyatwar.

WhatIsAddiction?

Authoritarian systems and structures, wherever they occur, areessentially about maintaining control over people. Not coincidentally,control is also a major issue in addiction. Here, however, the innerexperienceinvolvestryingtoimposecontrolwhilefeelingoutofcontrol.From our point of view, a direct link exists between authoritarianismand the so-called addictive personality, particularly around issues ofcontrol.Moreover,thecurrentepidemicofaddictionpointstoasocietythat itself is out of control.We view addiction as symptomatic of theunraveling of age-old authoritarian controls that used towork and nolongerdo.Our focus will be three-fold: to make clear the link between

authoritarianismandaddiction;topresentaframeworkforanalyzingthedynamics of addiction that differs from both the prevailing diseasemodel, and what we call “responsibility” models, which currentlychallenge thediseasemodel;and topresentpossibilities forending theinnerbattleforcontrol.Showing the connection between authoritarianism and addiction

reveals how the authoritarian personality displays itself not only inextremeformsofpoliticalorreligiousfanaticism,butalsoinbanalday-to-daylife. In fact, it isahiddencauseofmanyformsofdysfunctionalbehavior. Addiction offers a graphic illustration of covert internalmechanismsthatrevealshowhiddenauthoritarianismoperatesindailylife. We demonstrate how authoritarianism is not merely externallyimposed, but that there is an inner authoritarianworking tomaintaincontrol.This interiorphenomenonis farmoreprevalent inpeoplethanonewouldsuspect.Thischapteraimsatprovidingaframeworkwherebypeople can determine for themselves whether they have an innerauthoritarian.Addictionhasbecomesuchanubiquitousconcernthatitsmeaninghas

expanded to include all kinds of habits and behaviors that do notnecessarily have physiologicalwithdrawal symptoms.Until the diseasemodelcame intovogue, themedicaldefinitionofaddictionwas linked

only to drugs that caused withdrawal. In the current way the wordaddictionisused,itcanrefertoanycompulsive,excessive,problematic,orself-destructivehabit.Supposedlyonecanbeaddictedto love, food,sex, shopping, gambling, power, exercise, work, crime, and even toneedingtonurtureaddictedordependentpeople(whatisreferredtoasco-dependency).Inshort,fromthisperspective,onecanbe“addicted”toanyaspectoflifethatbringsgratification,beitpornographyorromancenovels, football or gossip.Countless support groups have sprungup tohelppeopledealwithcountlessso-calledaddictions.Sincethewordaddictionisnowusedsoloosely,onecouldstretchthetermstillmoreandconsiderstructures,institutions,andsocietyitselfasbeing addicted to ways of doing things, fixes that are self-destructiveoverthelongterm.Businessisaddictedtoacost-effectivenessthatdoesnot factor in pollution, maintenance, and cleanup. The way energy isused exemplifies a focus on immediate “turn-ons”without concern fortheultimatedestructivenessofdoingso.Thesearebuttwosymptomsofwhat could be called an addictive society. One could extend themetaphor further and say that accumulation societies in general areaddicted to expansion, which is no longer appropriate as we are nowfacing a world of limit. This includes the limit of the ozone layer toprotectlifeonthisplanet.We view addiction not only as a personal disorder, but as a socialdisorder as well. Our interest is not to overburden the concept ofaddictionstillfurther,butrathertomakeclearwhywedonotconsideraddictionmerelyapersonalproblem.Peoplereflectthesocietyofwhichtheyareapart.Manyareleftoutoftherewardsof“thegoodlife.”Manyothershave to sacrificebasichumanpsychologicalneeds, suchas timeforfriendship,intimacy,children,andleisure,inordertosucceed.Givenourstressful socialcontext, itoughtnotbesurprising thataddictiveorself-destructive behavior is rife. In a world engaged in dangerouslydysfunctional behavior around such basic and not subtle issues asecology, overpopulation, allocation of resources, etc., it is no wonderthatindividualsalsoallocatetheirpersonalresourcesinself-destructiveways.Addictionisunderstandablewhenpeoplefindthelifetheyareleadingwithouttheaddictionunrewarding,dismal,orhopeless.Addictionsofferatleastamomentarywayout.Thelifeofanaddictprovidessomething

concrete to be involved in which fixes the person up short term. The“fix,”whateveritis—beitasubstance,activity,ormodeofrelating—isboth obtainable and delivers a consistent, known result.1 In a chaoticworld, this supplies a strange kind of stability, comfort, and evensecurity.Beingaddictedseemsliketheoppositeofself-control;yetbothattheirrootinvolvewantingtocontrolfeelings.Certaindrugsbringinstantchange,instantintensity,aninstantshifttoanotherplace,anotherwayofbeing.Thepowertomakethischangeisliterallyinone’sownhands.Suchdrugsofferthesirensongofenormouscontrolwithquickreinforcementatonelevel,andbeingoutofcontrol(addicted) at another. The “junk” also becomes the focal point formeaning—eithertryingtogetitorgetoffit.Intheshadowyworldofthedrug addict, it is the hub aroundwhich all personal connections spin.Andinfactitreallydoesconnectpeople.Theydependoneachotherforsupplies of the drug and safety against the law, and they share a slyknowingnessabouttheweaknessoftheflesh.Justlikeasharedideologybringsmeaning and bonding, so too does a shared addiction. Inmostinstancespeoplegetintohighlyaddictivedrugsinthefirstplacebecausetheirlivespreviouslyhadlittlemeaning.Givingupthedrugwithallitsself-destructive aspects threatens a return to that dimly rememberedplaceofdrabisolationandmeaninglessnessthatthedrugreplaced.Tying the meaning of addiction to the occurrence of physiologicalwithdrawalsymptomswhenthesubstanceiseliminatedhasconcretenessand simplicity. This traditional medical definition does have theadvantage of countering the extreme extensions of the term that riskessentially defining itsmeaning out of existence by claiming anythingcanbeanaddiction.Butphysiologicalwithdrawalinandofitselfisnotthe real problem.Manywho are givenmorphine for pain go throughwithdrawal when they stop, and then resume their lives without everseeking it again.The real problem iswhen the addiction takes controloverpeople’s lives.The factorsbehind this seeming loss of control areourprimaryfocus.Thus we will not split hairs in trying to draw a firm line betweenphysiological and psychological factors; norwill we concern ourselveswithwhetherwhat isbeingcalledanaddiction is reallyabadhabit,acompulsion,escapism,etc.Wearenotpresentinga theoryofaddictionthatpurportstoexplainallthereasonsforit,norcoveralltheintricate

wayspeoplefindthemselvesinthethroesofit.Wedonotpresumethatourmodel (nor any) can address all the varieties of addiction.Rather,wewish to focus on the phenomenon of control and the conflicts theseeminglossofitbrings.The Peruvian laborer who chews coca leaves daily as an aid to

grueling work is addicted, but often has no conflict about it. This islikewise true for most people who use caffeine to get going or toconcentratebetter.Othersarecontentwiththeiraddictionsasanescapefroma life thathas little tooffer.Ouranalysisexcludes theseandanyotherareasofaddictionthatdonotinvolveinnerconflictandasenseofbeingoutofcontrol.Forbrevity’ssake,wewillhenceforthlimitouruseof theword addiction to those habitual, self-destructive activities thatgenerateinnerconflict.Our interest is to present a framework and analysis that showswhy

theinnerbattleisnotessentiallypeople’sprivatestrugglewiththeirownso-called weaknesses, but rather involves the internalization of valuesthat cannot be livedup to.Weview this kind of addiction as a revoltagainst an inner authoritarian, addiction being just oneway of trying(and failing) to escape it. Decoding this internal war has far-reachingimplications forunderstanding inner conflict in general, and the socialordersthatengenderit.Limiting ourselves to the configuration of addiction that involves an

innerbattleaboutbeingaddictedhastheadvantageofisolatingthemostelusive,controversial,andseeminglymysteriouscomponent—control.Infocusingon the innerconflictsaroundcontrol, including theostensiblelossofit,therearetworelatedfactors:

1.Doingrepetitivebehaviorsthatonefeelseitherincapableofstoppingorthattakegreatefforttotrytostop—andshouldonesucceed,theirpossiblereturnisalwayslurkinginthebackground.

2. These repetitive behaviors are judged by the person involved to be (or in fact are)interfering in a non-trivial way with one’s well-being—in short, they are self-destructive.

The two prevalent frameworks for addiction, the disease and theresponsibilitymodels,polarizearoundthecoreissueofcontrol.Diseasemodelsseeso-calledaddictsasbeinginthecontrolofanillness,abadgene—something that fundamentally puts them out of control. In

contrast, responsibility models emphasize choice and will power, andchallengetheideathatpeoplearereallyeveroutofcontrol.Insteadtheyseeaddicts as exercisingvaryingdegreesof control,usingaddictionasanaccommodationtotheirlives.Diseasemodelsareattractivebecausetheyrecognizepeople’sfeelingsofhelplessnessandminimizeblame;but this isat thecostofelevatingthe acknowledgment of powerlessness to a virtue. In contrast,responsibilitymodels enable people to feel they can change if they sochoose,butfailtoaccountforthedeepfeelingsofbeingoutofcontroland powerlesswhich are at the core ofmost people’s experiencewithaddiction.Wewill showwhybothmodelsnotonlymiss themark,butcontributeto theproblembecausetheybothstemfromthevalues thatleadtoaddiction.Whatdoesitmeantofeeloutofcontrol?Onethingitdoesnotmeanis being capriciously and chaotically blown by external factors.Addiction displays repetitive, largely predictable, very mechanicalpatterns. Such patterns indicate that the person is really not out ofcontrol,butratherinthecontrolofsomething—butwhat?Asubstance?Ahabit?Ageneticweakness?Abiochemicalshiftinthenervoussystem?An early trauma? A predilection for short-term pleasure at whatevercost?Aweakorperversewill?Wedonotdenyanyoralloftheabovecould be factors in feeling out of control. There is, however, a deeperwaytoexaminethebasicquestionofwhoorwhatisreallyincontrol.Ordinarily,withinaddictionthereareessentiallyonlythreepositionsvis-à-viscontrolthatonecanoccupyorshiftaroundin:

1.Keeping control over theunwantedbehavior. (Peoplewhodefine themselves asnon-drinkingalcoholicsareanexampleofthis.)

2.Totallygivingintoitafterastruggle,asexemplifiedbythebumonskidrow.3.Strugglingorbattlingwithitsothatoneflipsbetweenfeelinginandoutofcontrol.

The struggle is themostusual state.Andmostwhomanage tokeepsome control believe theymust be continually on guard lest they findthemselves“outofcontrol”again.Sounlessonehastotallygivenuportotally conquered the unacceptable behavior, some inner conflict ispresent.Whoare theprotagonists in thisdramaandwhat is thebattleabout?Obviouslyboth thebattlefieldand thebattlersmust livewithinthe person. This means the psyche must be compartmentalized into

differentpartsvyingforcontrol.

TheDividedPsyche:SymptomofaDysfunctionalMorality

The idea thathumansareorcanbe internallydivided isofcoursenotnew.Manytheoristswhohavelookedatinternalconflicthaveputforththenotionthatapersonhasdifferentpartsorvoicesthataretryingtobeheardorgiven theirplace. Ifan innerbattle forcontrolexists,at leasttwodistinguishableelementsmustbesoengaged.Thepersonisthen,atleasttosomeextent,divided.ToFreudandhisfollowerstheconflictisbetweenone’sconsciousandunconsciousaspects;Jungaddedaconflictbetweenthepersonalandtheuniversalorarchetypal;inBuddhismitisthe conflict between the selfless and self-centered; and in Westernreligionsitisbetweentheforcesofgoodandevilwithin.Thislistisfarfromcomplete.Shouldonegivetheideaofaninnersplitcredence,thenextquestion

iswhat is the nature of this division; andwhat ramifications does thesplithaveonhowandwhypeopledowhattheydo?Ourviewisthattheoscillations between being in and out of control within addiction arelargelyaparticularexpressionofadeeplydividedpsyche.No matter how a given theory describes the divisions within the

psyche, it is rare that thedivisions are allotted equal value.Buddhismvalues the selfless over the self-centered; Judeo-Christianity good overevil(it’shardnottoifrealityisframedanddividedinthisfashion);andFreudbelieveditwasnecessaryfortheconscioustokeeptheessentiallyanti-social,unconsciousforcesoftheidincheck.(Hethoughtrepressionnecessary because as a Victorian he accepted the dualisticmorality ofthereligionshedisdained,notimaginingthathistripartitemodelofthepsyche could be a consequence of thatmorality rather than of humannature.)Jungissometimesanexceptiontoplacinggreatervalueononeside, which is where much of his innovation, current relevance, andpopularitylie.Sincenotallculturesproducedividedpsychesas thenorm,an inner

divisioncannotbeanintrinsicpartofhumannature.Ratherweseethissplit as developing in tandem with the renunciate moral orders that

polarized existence by creating dualistic, hard categories betweenspiritualandmundane,soulandbody,spiritandmatter,etc.Thejoboflife then becomes maximizing the “good” or moral side of the splitthrough effort. For example, for aBuddhist one’swork is tobecomeabetterpersonbybecomingmoreselflessandlessself-centered.2Inallsocialhierarchiesbasedonproductionandaccumulation,doingone’s duty is valued over doing something else, or doing nothing;consequentlyworkisvaluedoverplay.Theyallmakedivisionsbetweenindustriousand lazy,valuing the former. Industriousmeansproducing,showingresults.Laziness,whichhasanegativeconnotation, isdefinedas spending time inways thatdonotyieldanything to show for it. Inthese moral systems leisure has no inherent value other than as atemporaryrewardforhardwork,itsfunctionbeingmainlyrecuperative.This is not real leisure. If having leisure is as important to a person’swell-beingasaccomplishmentorproductivity,itisnowonderthatthoseso deprived get involved in self-destructive activities that offer atemporarywayoutofalifewhereproducingisnotajoy,butmerelyameansforoftenmeagersurvival.Thesadtruthisthat inasocietythatdoes not value leisure, people largely have neither leisure normeaningfulwork.Addiction has been (and often still is) considered a moral failingbringingimmoralacts.We,too,lookatmuchofaddictionasessentiallya moral disorder—but one that results from a faulty morality, ratherthan faulty people. In our view the disorder comes from the personhavinginternalizedvaluesthatnotonlycannotbelivedupto,butthatinvolverenouncingandsuppressingvitalpartsofwhatitistobehuman.The part of oneself that takes on these values becomes the innerauthoritarian that not only attempts tomold one’s behavior to fit thevalues, but judges any deviance as bad or lacking. The values containstandardsforaccomplishmentandanidealofwhatitistobeagoodorworthy human being. This aspect of oneself that tries to actualize thevalues is perceivedas thevalued,worthwhile, respected—in short, the“good” part. Familial and societal mechanisms of reward andpunishment ordinarily support and reinforce this ostensibly good partremainingincontrol.We view the fundamental divisionwithin the psyche as a reflectionand internalization of traditional worldviews that all divide activities

into hard categories of right and wrong. We are not questioning thenecessityofconceptsofrightandwrongbeinginterwoveninanysocialorder.Rather,wearequestioningthecurrentandfutureviabilityoftheworldviews thatmake good and evil absolutes fromwhich static rulesand principles of right and wrong are derived. Complex, changingsocietiesneedanon-staticapproachtomoralitywhererightandwrongaretiedintoprocessesthatmovesocietyinanappropriatedirection,forexample:survival,socialjustice,andself-trust.Itisofcourseeasierforasocietytocontrolitsmembersthroughrigid,unchanging categories of right and wrong if people buy into them. Atask of traditional religion is to ensure that people do.Underlying themoral divisions between right andwrong, pure and impure, good andevil, or (as in some Eastern religions) reality and illusion is the basicseparationbetween the selfish and selfless.Wehave inmanydifferentplaces in this book described how and why this division between theself-centeredandselfless,theegoisticandaltruisticcreateswhatwecalla“renunciatemorality.”3Hereselflessnesswithitscorollaryself-sacrificeisacoreconcept,foritisthroughidealsofsacrificingselfishdesirestoGod’swill(monotheism),thegoodofthegroup(communism),orkarmiclaw(Hinduism)thatmoralityisdefined.Buddhismgoesfurtherandseesselflessnessinandofitselfasthekeytomoralityandrightaction.Thismoralityisessentiallyauthoritarianasitpegs“thegood”tothesacrificeofself-interestforsome“higherinterest,”whichitinturnconvenientlydefines.Elsewherewehavealsoshownhowtheveryconceptsofself-centeredand selfless are embedded in each other, and that they can only bemeaningfully seen as such.4 In our framework being self-centered issimply an aspect of being human, as is the capacity to truly care forothers. Not only does each have its value and function, they areintertwinedratherthantotallyseparateorevenseparable.Anymoralitythat separates the two, giving much more value to one (the selfless),cannot but deeply divide the psyche of those who accept this frame.Whatensuesisaninnerstruggleaimedatkeepingthedevaluedaspectofoneselfincheck.Acceptingselflessnessasthehighestvalueiswheretheinsidiousauthoritarianismoftheoldorderunwittinglyseepsintomanymodernparadigmsthatattempttobenew.5Even Jung,whoseworldview involved acknowledging andbalancing

basic polarities relegated the so-called dark side of humanity to anarchetypal concept he called “the shadow.” Shadows darkenwhateverthey touch, but they in themselves are insubstantial, with noautonomous existence. That Jung chose such a strangely disembodiedimage to represent thenegativepoleofhumanity is an indication thathe, too, was uncomfortable with it. Whenever there is a shadow,something else is always casting it. Actually it is self-centeredness,particularlyunacknowledgedorunconsciousself-centeredness,thatcastswhatevershadowsthereareintheworld.Therearethosewhohopethatby embracing the shadow or approaching it with compassion, it willmagically disappear. Self-centeredness, however, is very real and doesnot vanish when embraced. This is why all moral and social systemsattempttocurborchannelitintoareasofacceptability.No matter what the game, rules create a system of interaction and

expectation, and also define cheating. Cheating is breaking the rules(usually inahiddenfashion) inorder togainadvantagefor,ofcourse,oneself. Rules for playing the game of life are called ethics; if self-centerednessdidnotexist suchruleswouldnotbeneeded.Wearenotmaking self-centeredness the basic core of all motivation. To do sowould just bemore either/or conceptualizing, not essentially differentfromelevatingselflessness,whichhasbeendoneforthousandsofyears.However,self-centerednessmustbeacknowledgedasarealpartofbeinghumanthatisineradicable,necessary,andevenvaluable.Denyingthis,ortryingtoovercomeit, isself-destructiveanddysfunctional,anddoesnotresolvetheveryrealproblemsthatself-centerednessgivesriseto.Thehypocrisies,lies,andjustificationsfortheuseandabuseofpower,

which have been a prominent part of the history of all civilizations,oftencomefromapretensethatdeniesself-interest.HitlerjustifiedwhathedidthroughanideologythatplacedsupremevalueontheAryanraceratherthanonthefurtheringofhisownambitions.ThathecaredlittleforAryans, or anyone else for thatmatter, is obvious, ashedestroyedanyonewhostood inhisway.Hewouldnothavebeenable tomustersupporthadhesaidthatallhewasreallyinterestedinwaspoweratanycost.Whatonekeepshidden,oftenfromoneself,istheparticularflavorand

extentofone’sownself-centeredness.Thisisoneofthedeepestrootsofunconscious behavior, largely because people are conditioned to feel

guilty andashamedof thispart ofwho theyare.Also,deepdownnotfeeling good enough is a major factor behind the inner experience offeeling driven. This in turn brings the need to justify one’s existencethroughaccomplishmentandconstantlystrivingtobe“better.”Humansare the only animal driven in this fashion.Accomplishment and socialapproval do elevate feelings of self-worth. Yet since the taint of self-centerednesscanneverbetrulyeradicated, thestrivingisendless.Thisdeeply ingrained need to justify one’s existence is at the root ofPuritanism.ThemotivationalaspectbehindPuritanisminvolvesalwaystrying togetbetter (purer)—anever-ending taskwithoutrespite,giventhatpurity isdefinedinawaythatdeniestheessentialworthofbeinghuman in and of itself. The major religions promote this by valuingpurity, particularly purity of intent—meaning intention without self-interest.Lowself-esteem,whichiscurrentlybeingblamedforaplethoraof social ills, including addiction, is inevitable when one is taught todevalueabasicpartofoneself.Weemphasizetheself-centered/selflessdichotomyasabasicsourceofinternalconflictbecausethis isreallyhowthebattlemanifests itself inso many people. All societies have implicit and explicit rules forinteraction that inhibit, limit, and channel expressions of self-centeredness—this iswhat the socializingprocess is about.But theoldmoral orders did this by using authoritarian means that controlledpeople through implanting guilt and fear about this aspect of beinghuman.Nowpeopleandsocietyaremoreoutofcontrolbecausetheoldconstraints are no longer working. We are proposing that any innerbattlethatishabitualisanindicationofadividedpsyche;andfurther,thatbyitsnaturethisdivisionhasamoralornormativeaspect.Whatiscalledaddictionisbutoneexpressionofthis.

TamingtheBeast:TheInnerBattleforControl

Indescribing thedynamicsof the struggle forcontrolwithinadividedperson, a danger lies in conceiving the parts too literally as separateentitiesbattling forascendancy. (Reification isadangerofallmodels.)This is not our view.We look at the two sides as compartmentalizedaspects of the person that are tied into and dependent on each other.Thatis,thewayeachsideexpressesitselfwheninseemingcontrolisinreactiontoknowingandoftenfearingtheotherside.Even folk wisdom recognizes that the human mind creates

compartments, and that each, when activated, mysteriously seems totakeonalifeofitsown.(“Don’tlettherighthandknowwhattheleftisdoing.”) Why the mind creates boundaries within itself must involvesomething in one compartment being unacceptable to another. Valuesare what determine unacceptability. Each compartment contains aconfigurationofthoughts,memories,andemotionsthatneedtocompeteforexpressionbecausetheyoperateunderadifferent,conflictingsetofvalues.Calling the struggle for control essentially normative means that

values lie at theheartof it.Valuesare takenon,mostusually sociallyapprovedones,thatdefinewhatagoodpersonis.Forsimplicity,wecallthevaluedoridealpartofoneselfthatinternalizesandtriestoexemplifythese values the “goodself.” In order to be the kind of person thegoodself constructs as an ideal, control must be maintained over thatwhichinterferes.Ofcourse,iflivinguptoone’sidealswereinfactallaperson were about, there would be no need to employ control. Onewouldsimplydisplaythewantedvirtueswithoutconflict,hesitation,oreffort.What interferesare thepartsofbeinghumanthatdonot fit thevalues.Theveryneedtoexercisecontrolindicatesthatsomethingelseisgoingonthatmustbecontained—somethingthatwouldotherwisecomeoutandnotdisplaythewantedvirtues.Wecallthis“somethingelse”the“badself”becausewhatcomesoutwhenitisnotbeinginhibitedbythegoodself is very different, often the opposite, of the consciouslyproclaimedideals.

We want to make explicitly clear at the outset that we call thisdevalued part the badself not because it is actually bad, but ratherbecausethegoodselfandtypicallysocietyjudgeittobeso.Thiscaveatalso pertains to the goodself. We are aware of the drawbacks of thenomenclaturegoodself/badselfduetotheirconnotations,whichseemtoimplytheyareactuallygoodandbad.Thisweemphaticallydonotwishtoconvey.Althoughneitherisessentiallygoodnorbadinoureyes,wehave found no better words to represent the psychological distortionsthat result from theoldmoralorder’sdualistic, authoritarian split intogoodandevil.Neologismsarejustifiableinsofarastheyoffersomethingnew.Sowearebendinglanguagebyconstructingonewordoutoftwo(goodself instead of good self), intending this contrivance to be areminderthatthegoodselfdoesnotcontainallthatisvaluable,andthebadselfisnotdevoidofworth.Thenatureofthisinnersplitwillbecomemoreclearasthechaptermovesalong.Anymodelthatpurportstodescribeorexplainaspectsofinternalliferisks appearing overly simplistic or reductionistic. Yet, dividing thepsycheintothegoodselfandbadselfisnomore(orless)simplisticthanthedualisticmoralorderthatdividesthecosmosintogoodandevil. Ifpart of what is socially designated as bad is an inescapable aspect ofbeinghuman,thiscontextsetsthestagefordividingpeople’spsyches.Itis from this split that an internal struggle for control ensues. The twosidesare formedandperpetuated in reaction toeachother, that is,bytheir ongoing battle.What results is that the goodself has aspects onewouldbefarbetteroffwithout;whilethebadselfcontainselementsthatneedtobelegitimizedandexpressed.Ourviewisthathealthandwell-beinginvolvetrulybeingwhole,whichmeansnotinternallywarring.In general the goodself takes on some or all of the followingconstellation of values: A good person does one’s duty; is responsible,reliable, truthful, temperate, industrious, and productive; works toimprove oneself and maximize potential; can put aside immediatepleasuresformoreimportantfutureresults;doesnotuseorhurtothersmerely for one’s own enhancement or enjoyment; obeys the rules thatmakesocietywork; takesotherpeople’sneedsandwants intoaccount.Oftenthehighestgoodisconsideredputtingothersorsomethingotherthan oneself first. The job of the goodself is to remain in control toensurethesevaluesarelivedupto.

In contrast, the badself consists of the parts of oneself that aredevalued,andoften suppressedor repressedbecauseofnot fitting intothe values internalized by the goodself. Because it is usually theunderdog,thisunwantedpartofoneselfliesordissemblestogetitsway.Itcareslittleaboutfutureconsequencesortheireffectsonothers;itusesandmanipulatespeople;itishedonisticandoftenrecklessinthewayitgets and sustains its pleasures; it is more interested in fun thanaccomplishment; it pushes against boundaries, restrictions, taboos; itflirts with danger; and when crossed it displays so-called negativeemotionsandbehaviorssuchasanger,pettiness,andvengeance.Within this framework each side needs the other as a foil, and thuseach has mechanisms (usually not conscious) for keeping the gamegoing. So the two compartments or “selves” do not coincide withcategoriesofconsciousandunconscious,aseachcontainsboth.Butthesidemorevaluedbysocietyandthepersonwould,forthisreasonalone,tend to be more conscious. Most people prefer to identify with (andshowothers)theirgoodself,especiallygiventhatsocietyandotherswhohavesimilarvaluespraiseandrewardit.Consequently,thegoodselfhasmuchsupport inmaintainingcontrol.Since thedevaluedpartdoesnothavemoral legitimacytostanduptothevaluedpart, thewayit fightsfor expression is through subversion, deception, undermining (oftenunconscious), and externalization—“The devil [ormy addiction]mademedoit.”Weviewthefeelingofbeingoutofcontrolthatoccursinaddictionasasecularversionof religiouspossession.Laying thecauseofunwantedbehavior on an invading external evil spirit is similar to blaming thedrug itself. Incontrast,weviewcompartmentalizationand theensuingstruggle as a better explanation of both addiction and so-calledpossession. Feeling out of control really means the goodself is not incontrol,butinsteadanunacceptablepartofoneselfis.6Theremainderofthischapterwilldescribetheworkingsofthebattlefor control in general and within addictions. We end by giving someindicationsabouthowadividedselfcanbecomewhole,whilepointingout the difficulties in doing this within social orders whose power isderived fromhavingpeople remaindivided. For it is thisdivision thatmakespeopleespeciallysubjecttoauthoritariancontrol.Valuescanbeinternalized,expressed,andreactedagainstinavariety

of ways. That we are critical of the process by which the goodselfinternalizes and self-imposes values does not mean we are essentiallychallengingtheworthofthevaluesthemselves.Althoughthereisgreatvariance in the way values are ordered internally, they are oftenorganized in a hierarchy of importance. For some, dutymay be a toppriority. But this could be duty to country, God, one’s children, theplanet’s ecology, or one’s own spiritual development. For others dutymightnotbeamajorconcern.Itcouldinsteadbeproductivity,helpingothers,truthfulness,orintegrity,etc.Within thegoodself/badselfdivision, it isdifficultnot toplaceone’s

allegiance with the goodself. But the goodself is not as benign as itsespoused values make it seem. Authoritarianism is usually masked bylofty ideals thatappear tobe life-affirmingonthesurfaceandarethushard to fault.Andhere too, theseemingly impeccablevaluesmask theprocessbywhichthegoodselfcreatesadriven,cut-offhumanbeing.Totheextentthatitsidealsbecomecriteriaforliving,thegoodselfbecomestheinnerauthoritarianwhosetaskistokeeptheforbidden,“bad”partsunder its control. This not only occurs within a person, for often inrelationshipsoneperson’sgoodselfcan try tocontrolanother’sbadself,settingoffareactivebattleforcontrolbetweenpeople.Thegoodself embodiesboth thedominant and submissive aspects of

theauthoritarianpersonality.Sinceitusesexternalauthoritiestobolsteritspoweroverthebadselfandotherpeople,itisconditionedtosubmitto authorities. The goodself then is dictatorial, judgmental, structured,oftenapuritanicalharshtaskmaster;andaboveall it is fearful—fearfulthatwithoutalwaysmaintainingcontrol,one’slifewouldunravel.Ifthegoodself shows some benevolence toward human frailty, especially itsown,itcanattimes(ifnottoothreatened)allowandforgivelittlelapsesofvirtue—forafterall,“Oneisonlyhuman.”Thissafetyvalveworksaslongasthingsdon’tgetoutofhand.Addictionisonewaythingsdogetoutofhand.Thegoodself is involved in“taming thebeast,”meaningkeeping the

carnal, the animal,within acceptable bounds. The fear is thatwithoutconstraints,theanimal(orid,darkside,one’ssinfulnature,unabashedand uncaring self-centeredness) would rage forth, leaving destruction,includingself-destruction,initswake.Thiskindofinnerdivisionusuallyrelegatesmuchofself-centerednessandcarnalitytothebadself,thereby

distorting and exacerbating them. It also suppresses spontaneity,creativity,andenjoyment for theirownsakebecause theseexpressionsoften undermine the goodself’s control mechanisms. It is this divisionbetween the animal and the rational, the spiritual and material, andultimatelybetweentheselflessandself-centeredthatdoesnotallowthecarnalandself-centeredtobeintegratedandvaluedaspartofawholebeing.Ironically,thedivisionitselfwithitssuppressionsensuresthatifwhatisinhibitedeverdoesbreakloose,ittendstogowild.Thisinturnconfirms theworst fears of the goodself, verifying its need to keep incontrol. It is around this dynamic that we will describe our views ofaddiction.Twodifferentyetinterrelatedquestionsarerelevanthere:First,whyisitthatonewantsorneedstoexpresstraitsjudgedundesirableatall;andsecondly, howdoes onego aboutdoing so?The latter dealswithhowthebadselfgetsthegoodselftorelinquishcontrol.Just as those with political power have the advantage of officialideologyandsanctionsoverusurpers,sotoodothegoodself’sjudgmentscarry more weight. These judgments about what it is to be a goodhumanbeingareprogrammedfromchildhoodandstandunderneathoneof themost powerful controlmechanisms of the goodself—guilt.Mostparents rely heavily on guilt to control children’s behavior bymakingthem feel they are bad for being self-centered and disobedient.7 Thisplaysaprimaryroleincreatingadividedpersonality,asitmakespeoplefeel bad about basic aspects of themselves. A non-fragmented personcouldtreatguiltsimplyasinformationthatadiscrepancyexistsbetweenone’svaluesandbehavior,bothneedingtobereexaminedtodeterminewhich, ifeither, isappropriate. Incontrast,adividedperson’sgoodselfusesguiltasadrivingmechanismtoremainincontrol.The goodself has all the weight of tradition, accepted morality,parental conditioning, and social structures on its side. Accumulationcultures all place high value on the means of accumulating, namelywork.Having a divided selfmay ormay not be essential inmaking a“workethic”work,butitisessentialinproducingpeoplewhoaredrivento justify their existence. Humans are the only animal so driven, andhere, too, guilt plays its part. Guilt about being bad often results inneedingtoprovetoourselvesandothersthatweareworthwhilethroughachievement. Work and accomplishment, and the rewards and praise

theybring,aremechanismsthatcankeepthegoodselfincontrol.This endless need to get better creates amysterious core of tension

thatisthemotordrivingmany.Althoughlivingwiththistensioncomesto seem normal, what results is an inner torture chamber fromwhichanother part of oneself is desperately trying to escape. So callingaddictions“escapism”hasastrangetruthandirony.Whatisrequisiteforall of this to operate is a core of deep self-mistrust and even fear ofoneself.Authoritarianmoralities thatdenigrate thecarnaland the self-centeredimplantthemindcontrolthatisnecessaryforsuchself-control.Allmindcontroloperatesundertheguiseofself-control.Wearenotdenigratingeitherself-controloraccomplishment.Thereis

deep satisfaction in a job well done, in enlarging the scope of one’scapabilities, or in helping others to do the same.Accomplishment andself-controlare intrinsically tiedtoeachotherandareessentialhumanneeds and expressions—as are leisure and spontaneity. Rather,we areshowingthemechanismsoperativeinthestruggleforcontrolindividedpeoplewhofearlooseningcontrolbecausetheyfearthemselves.In fearing oneself, what is actually feared is one’s badself, and that

withoutbeing continuallypushedby thegoodself onewould endupaslothfulpersonofnoworth.We lookat the innerbattle for control asinvolving an inner authoritarian, armed with moral righteousness,cagingneededhumanexpressionthatdoesnothaveanadequatevoice—i.e., a historically well-articulated alternate set of values capable ofvalidating needed expressions of carnality and self-centeredness.(Carnality,ouranimalnature,whichinvolvessatisfyingbasicneeds,hasan intrinsically self-centered component.) Thus the badself’s route topowerissubversion,seduction,andcasuistrytosabotagethegoodself’srules. People so divided both cage themselves and reactively try toescape their cage. Here people operate under and rebel againstimplanted“shoulds,”whichguaranteesalifeofconflict.Sincesocietydefinesmaturityasassumingrolesandobeyingrules,the

badself often looks like a rebellious child next to the goodself’s adultveneer. Although there is a similarity between the way the badselfsubverts and a clever child wheedles around adult authority, thegoodself isnomoretrulyadultthanthebadself it triestocontain.Thebadself’sattempttocompensateforlacksofexpressionthroughextremesisjustpartofthegame.It,too,isasymptomofapolarizedauthoritarian

morality that has bought the framework which makes the goodself“good,”andsoitgets itspleasurestheonlywayitcan—throughbeing“bad.”8The badself exerts a powerful allure—that of spontaneity, shameless

self-indulgence,cuttingloose,throwingcautiontothewinds,andothertaboo enticements, including forbidden expressions of sexuality.Breaking out of the goodself’s boundaries can release a charismaticenergythatisseductivetoothers.Society’sfondnessandindulgenceforfictionalheroeswhooutwit authorities andbreak rules is legend, as isthe romantic appeal of the frontier—that lawless place beyondconvention. In contrast, portrayals of pure virtue, where the goodselfreignssupreme,areoflittleinterest.Themythicfigure,theoutlawhero,vicariously offers an outlet for a repressed culture by igniting a safecollusion with people’s badselves. Thus society puts forth a doublemessage:“Rebellionisbadanddangerous,”ononeside;and“Rebellionisnotonlyexcitingandexhilarating,itisfreedom,”ontheother.Doublemessages from parents have been shown to cause schizophrenia inchildren.Thedoublemessagesasocietyputsoutlikewisemustfragmentitsmembers,butheretheresultingpathologyisdisguisedbybeingthesocialnorm.9Groupseasilyformaroundelicitingandreinforcingeitherthegoodor

badself; these alliances serve as amechanism to bolster the control ofthatside.Whompeopleassociatewithisoftenbasedonneedingalliestosupportonesideortheother.10Gangsofyoungmalesurgingeachotheron to rebelliousdeeds isanexampleofa collusionbetweenbadselves,while12-Stepprograms functionasa support for thegoodself. In suchsupport groups the goodself’s inability to control the addiction on itsowniswhatconnectsthemembers.Previoustojoining,itwasoftenalsotheaddiction (gettinghigh together) thatconnected themtoothers. Inboththerepetitivedrunkandthestrictteetotaler,therelationtoalcoholisafoundationofpersonalityandthecentralfocusoflife.The badself has no monopoly on destruction, including self-

destruction.Groups that exacerbate the inner split and justify violencealsoformwhenpeoplesurrendertoaleaderoranideology.Hereidealsofpurity(andpurifying)arethebasisforrampagingviolenceviaracistlynchmobs,“lawandorder”vigilantes,orarmiesundertheloftybannerofrighteousnessorfulfillingGod’swill.Theyalluse“doinggood”asthe

grounds for callous brutality. Any culture or person whose identity ispredicatedonsuperiority,moralorotherwise,isparticularlysusceptibleto this. Living up to images of superiority requires a severe innerauthoritarian,whichinturnvindicatesexternalseverityandruthlessnessasameanstosomepurifiedend.Socially sanctioned violence, be it war or capital punishment, iscapableofdestroyinganythingaslongasitcanbejustifiedwithsharedmoralprinciples.Westronglysuspectthatthedeeperthesplitiswithinapersonorculture, thegreaterthepotential fordestruction.Thehighestand therefore most unlivable ideals cause the greatest split. Thisframeworkexplainshowawholeculture(NaziGermany)couldcommitmonstrousatrocitiesitlaterdeplores.In the struggle for control between the two selves,what is really incontrolisthepolarizedunconscioussystemitself.Thatis,neithersideisconsciousofparticipatinginasystemwhereeachsidecolludeswiththeother. The goodself needs something “bad” to control, and the badselfneedssomethingtoreactagainst.Inorderforthegoodselftojustifyitspower,thebadselfhastobeexcessive.Eachsideneedstheothertoexistat all, quite literally, because each can only live in opposition to theother. So however torturous, both selves need to perpetuate the split.Ultimately, the inner battle for control depends on the dynamicsbetween the two selves remainingunconscious.Themoreextremeandinflexible the inner compartments, the more people oscillate betweentheminaseeminglyinexplicablefashion.Inourview,muchofwhatiscalledpsychopathologyalsodisplaysthewayspeopleaccommodatethisunconsciousstrugglewithinthemselves.Tohintbrieflyat this lineof thought:Neurosesarewaysofexpressingself-centeredness and being self-absorbed that would otherwise beunacceptable—psychoses even more so. Whatever else psychotics aredoing,theyarecreatingawalleduniversewiththemselvesinitscenterthat leavesno room for others. Psychotic “dis-integration” comes froman inability to integrate parts of oneself judged bad or wrong. Manypsychotics are very sensitive and painfully aware of the hypocrisymasking somuch of social interactionwhere people pretend to be farmorevirtuousthantheyare.Theyareunabletocopewiththeso-callednegativeaspectsofbeinghuman,suchasaggression,notonlyinothers,but inthemselves.Theirsolutionis to leavethefieldofnormalhuman

interaction.Thesociopathorpsychopathwhohasthatmysteriousailmentofbeingwithoutconsciencehasadoptedasasurvivalstrategythenegationofthegoodself,which results in lossof empathyandcare.This adaptation ismorelikelytheresultofanemotionallyimpoverishedchildhoodthanofconscious choice. If intelligent, a psychopath maintains the guise ofconventional morality and is never discovered. Elevating self-centeredness (thebadself) as theonly reality, the sociopath’s access tohuman connection becomes power and domination. Although brightpsychopaths are usually able to construct safe ways of getting theirpower needs met, some resort to violent outlets which can becomecompulsions,serialmurderbeinganextremeexample.Themostheinouscrimes are often committed by those who are noteworthy for beingunnoteworthy. Serial killers, like Nazi leaders, are renowned for theiroutwardordinariness.

AddictionasRevoltagainsttheInnerAuthoritarian

The battle for control in addiction involves somewhat predictablepatterns that shift control fromone self to theother.Herea substance(alcohol) or activity (gambling))becomes the focal point of thebattle.Eithercanbecomeatriggermechanismthatshiftscontroltothebadself,allowing the expression of what has been suppressed. A “triggermechanism” isanyexperience thatoffers some immediaterelease. It isfearedor forbiddenbythegoodselfbecause itcanactasadoorwaytounderminingitscontrol.Atriggermechanism(takingadrinkorplacingabet)doesnotalwaysescalatetowherethegoodselflosescontrol,butanaddictisneversurewhenitwill.The trigger mechanism is usually made the culprit (“demon rum”).

Now a modern twist has faulty genes empowering the substance toexplain why only certain people are susceptible. It is possible thatparticular genetic configurations affect susceptibility and predilectionsdifferently.Forexample,thosewithslowermetabolismscouldgravitatetowardstimulants,whilethosewithfasteronestowarddepressants.Yeteven granting that genetics may be a factor, making genes the majorcausedoesnot explainwhy lossof controlonlyoccurs sometimes,norwhy somewho are susceptible cannot exercisemoderation. One drinkdoesnotmakeanyonedrunkoroutofcontrol.Incontrast,locatingthecruxoftheprobleminadividedpsychethatusesatriggermechanismtosabotage its inner authoritarian does explain both the sporadic loss ofcontrol and the power of the first drink.Herewhether loss of control(actually,ashiftofcontroltothebadself)occursornotisafunctionofthecontext,whichexplainswhythosewithmoretoloseoftenmanagetomaintaincontrolwhentheyneedto.When addictions shift control to the badself, this provides both an

opportunity and an excuse to let out a lot of things that are normallyheld in. For instance, a mother killed two of her children while oncocaine.Afterwardsheclaimedshelovedthem,displayingbewilderment(“Ihadn’tplannedonit”)andseeminglygenuinedistressastowhyshekilledthem.Thiswastakenasconvincingevidence(byTimemagazineat

least—June 10, 1991) that the drugmade her do it. Yetmany peoplehave taken large amounts of cocaine without killing anyone. Can onedoubt that thiswomanmusthavehadextremeconflictbetween lovingher children and resenting the sacrifices that taking care of themimposedonher?Tous,thatshewastrulyconfusedastowhyshediditcorroborates that she has a deeply divided and compartmentalizedpsyche.Whenbackinhergoodself,shewasunconsciousofthedepthofherambivalenceaboutmotherhood.Thisisanextremeexampleofhowcultural idealizations of maternal self-sacrifice can divide a mother towhere her goodself cannot acknowledge how much resentment isactuallythere.11As it is a part of a larger inner dynamic, what triggers the shift incontrol can be most anything that brings immediate gratification:consciousness-altering drugs, food, shopping, gambling, stealing,anything taboo, etc. Trigger mechanisms ignite memories of previousstatesofpleasureandrelease.Theveryactof, say,placingabetshiftsoneoutofwhereveroneisintoanticipatingsomethingbetter.Eventhedisappointmentoflosingcanbeimmediatelyalteredbyplacinganotherbet.Whetherwinningorlosing,compulsivegamblershavegamblingasthe focus of their lives because they use it for release—that is, to getawayfromtheirgoodself.Thestruggleforcontroliscomposedofcyclesinwhicheachsidegainstheupperhandtemporarily.Theinnerdialogueoftheaddictreflectsthisbattle. The goodself lays down the rules and reasons (all good) formaintaining control. Hungering to escape the confined, idealized, andregimented life the goodself tries to lead, the badself’s voice is moresubduedinthebackground—asirensongwhisperingwordsofthisilk:“Ineed to relax.Onedrinkwon’thurt—this time I’ll stay in control; I’vebeengoodandneedabreak; I’m losingmyfriendsbecause I’mno funanymore; I feel just as bad when I don’t drink—so what’s thedifference?”Since the life as constructed by the goodself has a driven quality(toward success, improvement, or merely keeping forbidden impulsessuppressed),anyunwantedoccurrencecanoverloadanalreadystressedsystem.Anargumentwithalovedone,feelingabusedorunappreciatedbyone’sbossormate,losingmoneyinthestockmarket,acaraccident—suchdifficultiesaresuretocome,astheyareapartoflife.Thisbrings

thehardestthoughttoresist:“Thisistoomuch—Ican’ttakeanymore.”Oneknowsexactlywhatwilleasethetension.Thefirstdrinkdoesbringa real letting go. This is not primarily owing to the drug’s effects, butmore because taking it ends the immediate conflict about whether totake it,bringingamomentaryrelease fromtheoverall struggle.Wherethenerveswerescreaming,tensionbeginstomeltaway,leadingtothejustification,“God,Ireallyneededthat;thethingsIhavetodealwith.”Forsimplicity,wewillfocusonalcoholaddictionasaprototypeforanumberofreasons:itisaclassicaladdictionasitcanhavephysiologicaldependency andwithdrawal; it is amajor social problem; the drug issocially acceptable and available in much of the world, and thusextremely accessible. Also, most who use it do not become addicted.Moreover,alcoholismasadiseasewasakeyconceptinthedevelopmentof12-Stepprograms,themostwidespreadaddictiontreatment.Thoselabeledaddictsoftengoovertheedgetowheredrinkingmakesthemdysfunctional.Fromourpointofview,this isbecausethehiddenpurpose of addiction is precisely that—to make the goodselfdysfunctional.Onedrinkloosensthecontrolsenoughtoleadtoanother,butnotenoughtodoawaywiththegoodself’sbehavioralconstraints.Sothe addict drinks until that occurs. As tolerance to the drug increasesover time, more is needed to incapacitate the goodself, which bringsaboutsocialandrelationalproblemsaswellasphysicaldamage.Thisinturn reinforces the goodself’s values and need to stay in control. Thegoodselfmustbecomeevenmorerigidlesttheunwantedpartscomeout;while the badself, through devious means and sabotage, attempts toundermine its control enough to allow the trigger mechanism entry.Thus, inapsychesodivided,nomatterhowmuchpower thegoodselfseemstohaveatanymoment,thebadselfisalwayslurkingunderneath,waitingfortherightmomenttotakecontrolbyseeminglygoingoutofcontrol.Once the badself is on a roll it resists restraint, knowing it will becagedagain.Eventually,asabingeplaysitselfout,theextremesofself-abuse and unacceptable behavior (becoming truly “wasted”) act likeanother triggermechanismthat lets the“righteousself” regaincontrol.Control usually shifts back to the goodself when the badself’s cuttingloose reaches a point of excess that can no longer be handled orintegrated. Excess eventually occurs since the badself is reactive by

nature, mechanically rebelling against the goodself’s constraints andjudgments,includingthosethatdohaverealsurvivalvalue.Thencomethejudgments,self-recriminations,andvowswhichthegoodselfusestobolstertheconstraintsnecessarytokeepthebadselfsubmerged.The victory is Pyrrhic, however, for all its carefully constructed

defensescanunravelinanunexpectedinstant.Thegoodselfknowsdeepdown it really isn’t in control, because it can never be sure that in amomentof“weakness”ortemptationitselaborateedificeofcontrolswillnot again crumble. So it must always be on guard. This is why somepopular frameworks of addiction are emphatic that addicts can neverreally be cured. In actuality this is only true as long as the personremains internally compartmentalized. Unfortunately, the very belief“Onceanaddict,alwaysanaddict”isaself-fulfillingprophecybecauseitensuresself-mistrust,whichkeepsadividedselfdivided.The longer one is involved in the inner battle, the more self-trust

deteriorates. Perpetually making and breaking resolutions graduallyerodesthegoodself’scredibilitywithitselfasitsecretlylosesfaithinitscapacity tomaintaincontrol.What resultsarepeoplewhodonot trustthemselves at the deepest level. Part of their tragedy is they have nogoodreasonto.Eventhosewhohavekeptcontrolovertheirlivesforanextendedperiodoftimestillhavetotakeit“onedayatatime.”Severe dysfunctional addiction is only one of the more obvious

manifestationsofthepowerstruggleinpeopletornbetweentheirgoodandbadselves.Because thedivided self is thenorm,muchof so-callednormal life containsvaryingdegreesof this innerconflict.Many sufferfrom and often hide a raging inner battle which brings not only self-disparagement,butseverelyblocksenergy.Foodaddiction(whatmanywould call a compulsion) is a good example. Eating (like sex) is anessential human activity with immediate gratification that can getcaught up in a struggle for control. Though socially safer than manyotherso-calledaddictions,strugglingwithfoodstill involvessomekindofinnerrevoltagainsttherulesandstructuresofaninnerauthoritarian.Heretoo,thefeelingofnotbeingabletocontroloneselfcanonlymeanthatanotherrebelliouspartofoneselfisincontrol.The easiest way to try to control a habit is to avoid the trigger

mechanism altogether through unambiguous rules of total abstinence.Thismakes it harder for the badself to seduce, tempt, and rationalize.

Compulsiveeatingiscomplicatedbythefactthattotalabstinenceisnota possible solution. With overeating, as in any addiction, using willpower isnot reliable,because self-control inadividedperson is really“goodself-control,” which has inbuilt reactiveness. Thus whenevereating, a divided person faces the possibility of “losing” control, sinceanybitecanbecomeatriggerthatshiftscontrol.Evenmore,giventhatfood is everywhere and abstinence not an option, the badself’spropensityforrationalizationandsabotagecanmanifestwheneverfoodcomes to mind. Ironically, since food is often used as a reward or tocelebrate,many people are conditioned to overindulge as a payoff forbeinggood.Of course, different substances operate differently. Cultural valuesdetermine which addictions or compulsions are socially acceptable.When productivity and expansion are primary values, work—and itsmirror image, consumption (the reward for work)—as well as moneyand power, easily become addictive. Not surprisingly, drugs thatenhance work or bring release in socially safe ways are favored. Forexample, caffeine and nicotine are often used tomaintain control andfocus.Botharesociallyacceptable,as theycanaidproductivityandfitintonormalactivities.Withneitherdrugdoesexcessleadtothereleaseofsuppressedaspectsofoneselfnoranti-socialbehavior.Uponbecomingtrulycognizantofnicotine’sdetrimentaleffects,eventhoughit ishighlyaddictivephysically,somepeoplestopsmokingandgothroughwithdrawalwithaminimumoffuss,whileotherstorturouslytrytoeliminateitandfail.Whyisthisso?Aswithotheraddictions,insmokersthebattleforcontrolisbetweenthe“good”partofoneselfthatknows what’s best, and the rebellious part that justifies momentarypleasure with a devil-may-care attitude toward self-destruction. Thosewho stop manage to shift priorities upon seeing that the habit is notworth theconsequences,and thatclaritydefuses the struggle.Whereasthosewho say theywish they could stop but cannot or “are not quiteready” really don’t want to but think they should. Here just thinkingaboutstoppingisenoughtotriggerdesire.Theseeminginabilitytoresistisusedaspermission to continue.Perhapshavingpreviously triedandfailed,suchpeoplefearlosingthebattleagain.Nicotine isa strangedrugwhich seems tobebothabrain stimulantand amuscle relaxant that easily gets hooked into daily work habits.

Many smokers become very anxious without nicotine because itdampens emotions, givingmore control over unwanted ones. Smokingserves as a momentary release and aid to a nervous system over-burdenedbymaintainingcontrolinotherareas.Whatmakesnicotinesodifficultto“kick”isthatitsupportsthegoodself’sagendaswhilegivingthebadselfanemotionallysafe,routinevenueforrebellion.On theother endof the spectrumare compulsions that arenotonly

anti-social, but hurtful to others. In violent compulsions such asrepetitive rape and serialmurder, a buildup of inner pressure leads tothefix(i.e.,release)thatcoolsthepersonout.Inthosewhoaredriveninthis fashion, the addiction is to a guaranteed form of power that notcoincidentally is a release of hatred or rage. “Getting off” on others’extreme pain, fear, or even death can only comewith shutting off allempathy. In our framework this is not because one is a bad seed orcongenitallydeficient,butbecauseonehaslearnedtofeelgoodmainlythrough being bad. These people become human time-bombs becausetheirbadselfistheironlyaccesstopowerandrelease.12Thentoo,thereistherecurrentmysteryheardaboutfarmoreoftenthaniscomfortable:the seeming incongruity of a supposedly ordinary, “nice,” upstandingpersongoingberserkonakillingrampageusuallyendinginsuicide.Forusgoingberserk isanother signofa rigidlycompartmentalizedpsycheseekingrelease.Repeatedwife-beatingcanbe lookeduponasanaddiction.Batterers

talk about being “out of control.” Like other addicts, they are alsonotoriouslytwo-sided,onesidebeingsweetandloving,evencharming,theotherviolentandvicious.Thewomanoftengetsstuckinconfusionand ambivalence, wonderingwhich is the real person. The answer, ofcourse,isthatbothsidesareequallyreal.Habitualbatteringinvolvesasyndromewhereviolencereleasesbuilt-uptension.13Lestitappearweareplacingself-destructivenesssolelyinthebadself,

we emphatically are not. On the contrary, self-destructiveness comesfromhavingaselfsoseverelydividedthateachsideistryingtodestroytheother.Withinthisframework,nohealthysolutioncanemerge.Beinga bum on skid row is one way of seeming to end the battle bysurrendering fully to the addiction.14 A victorious badself is obviouslyself-destructive and also leads a very constricted life. Here the fear isthat any attempt at sobriety will bring back the more unbearable

battlefield of conflict.A victorious goodself is also self-destructive, butless obviously so. What has been destroyed are self-trust and vitalaspectsofself-expression.Also,therigiditythatcomesfromsuppressingelements of one’s nature over time often takes its toll on the bodythrough stress-related ailments. Tension is always present because thegoodself cannever truly relax.Which of thewarring selves is the realperson? The answer is both and neither—both because each is a realexpressionofwhothepersonactuallyis;andneitherbecausethereisnowaytoknowwhatanintegratedpersonfreeofthestrugglewouldlooklike. Truly ending this inner battle through integration is far moredifficultthangivingoneortheothersideascendancy.Mostwaysofdealingwithaddictiondonotgetattherootofthesplit

endemic to cultures thatdualistically categorizegoodandevil. Insteadthey attempt to strengthen the controls of the goodself to where thebadself is sufficiently contained. Although this can work in makingpeople more socially acceptable, even to themselves, it does not freethemfromtheinnerbattle.Societieswhosevaluescreateandreinforcethis personality split not onlymake integrationdifficult, but spawnanunderbelly of corruption as the devalued side creates clandestineavenuestoexpressitself.Corruptionishiddenself-centeredactivitythatiscontrarytothevaluesasocietyprofesses.

TheFailingsofDiseaseandResponsibilityModels

Ifsubstanceaddictionisthoughtofasadisease,itiscertainlynotoneintheordinary sense, as there areno invadingmicroorganisms todispel,noranywayofphysicallydetectingitwhenthesubstanceisnotpresent.Moreover,addictivesubstancesdonotaffecteveryoneuniformly;nordotheyevenhaveauniformeffecton thesamepersonall the time.Non-substance “addictions” (eating, shopping, stealing, gambling, etc.) areevenmoredifficulttoplaceinadiseaseframework.Ontheotherhand,locating the problem of substance abuse totally in the psychologicalrealmstretchesthemeaningoftheworddiseasetoomuch.Here,therewouldbenomorereasontocalladdictionadiseasethantocallfearofheights(oranyneurosis)adisease.Sotopostulatethatthosewhodogetaddictedaresufferingfromadiseasecanonlymeansomethingiswrongwith,orlackingin,theirphysicalmakeup.What meaning addiction as a disease could have is that because of

genetic predilections, chemical imbalances, or other physiologicalfactors, one is unable to handle a given substance without loss ofcontrol.Hereaddictionisviewedasbeingsimilartoanallergy,withthesymptombeing that the first drink triggers an uncontrollable need forthe second. (If thiswere true then total abstinencewould be the onlysolution.) This doesn’t explain why people often move from oneaddiction to another, or have non-substance addictions. The otherproblemwiththistheory(besidesthefactthatmuchresearchclaimstodisproveit)isthattypicallyoncepeopleidentifyanallergy,theysimplyavoidwhat causes it. Backers of the allergy theory could contend thatmost ordinary allergies initially feel bad, while addictive allergiesinitiallyfeelsogoodtheyareirresistible.Butthisplacesaddictionsinadifferentcategory;anditstillfailstoexplainwhysomepeoplecontinueafterknowingtheproblem,whileothersdesist.Moretellingly,italsofailstoexplainwhythosewhobelievetheyare

allergictoalcoholtakethefirstdrinkatall.Thismeans lossofcontrolcan precede the first drink, making it hard not to take it. Unless aresidueremainsfrompreviousdrinking,thetemptationandsubsequent

lossofcontrolcannotbeafunctionofthephysicaleffectsofthealcoholitself. A hangover is a residue, but other than that, there’s noway topredictwhenandwhythefirstdrinkistakenwhenthepersonissober.The realproblem,however, is thatpeoplenotoriously start againafterdryingout.Thustheurgeto takethe firstdrinkmustcomefromsomeplaceotherthanphysicalneed.The great appeal of the disease model to people struggling withaddictionisthatitgivesthemareasonfortheirplightotherthanaflawin their character. The addict is no longer seen as depraved,weak, orjustplainnogood,butrathersick.Justasthosewithpneumoniaarenotexpected to go it alone and cure themselves, neither should this beexpectedof those suffering fromaddiction,especially if it isan illness.Theproblemisthatpneumoniacanbecuredmedically,whileaddictioncannot. The physiological effects of addictions can be eliminated bysimplyshuttingoffaccesstothesubstanceforasufficientlengthoftime.But this does not necessarily ameliorate the propensity to becomeaddicted, which is what a real curewould be. Removing people frominternalandexternalblamedoeshavevalue,asdoesencouragingpeopletoseekhelp.Butthediseaseframeworkofaddictionisflawednotonlybecause addictionneither looksnor acts like anyother kindof illness,but also because the model itself becomes an important chip in thepowergameof“Whoisincontrol?”The widespread popularity of the disease model becomesunderstandablewhenone sees the available alternatives in the currentmoral climate. In our society wrong actions (being “bad”) are to bepunished, while the sick deserve compassion and the allocation ofresourcesforcures.Inordertobecured,therehastobeanillness.Sinceoursociety’smajorsolutiontocrimeandotherunacceptabledevianceispunishment,notrehabilitation,oneescapevalvethatallowsformercifultreatment is the concept of diminished capacity. If a disease makespeoplelosecontrol,theircapacitiesarecertainlydiminished.Given only these two alternatives—bad or sick—addicts, those whocareaboutthem,thehealth-careindustry,andsocietyingeneralwouldunderstandablymuchratherlookataddictionasanillness.Thisframeatleast offers the possibility of a humane approach to the problem. Intermsofthedividedself,judgingsomeone“bad”leadstopunishingthebadself,while thedesignation“sick”permitshelping thegoodself. It is

notsurprising,then,thatallthecontradictionswithinthediseasemodel,aswellasthebodyofscientificresearchthatiscontrarytoit,arelargelyignored. This is in part because people fear that if addicts were notconsidered sick, society’s solutionswould be harsh and punitive. Also,the rubric of illness is the official ticket to ameliorative (instead ofpunitive) funding, grants, and insurance benefitswhich fuel themulti-billion-dollarrehabilitationbusiness.Older views saw excessive anti-social behavior as either bad orpossessed by something bad. They tried to control it through censure,punishment, or some form of exorcism (often another guise ofpunishment—“beating out the devil”). And although drunkenness (orinsanity)couldexcusemoderateindiscretions,whencontrolwasapplieditwaslargelypunitive.Inshort,theerrantindividualwastakentotaskandmaderesponsible.Certain contemporary theories also hold that, bottom line, theindividualmustbeheldresponsible.Wethuscall them“responsibility”models, the more sophisticated of which are also concerned withsociety’s responsibility, as well as prevention and rehabilitation. Theirapproach is to empower people so they can conquer their addictions,rather than making them feel powerless before a disease, whichnecessitates going to some outside agency for a “cure.” These modelsholdthatindividualsshouldultimatelytakethecreditorblameforwhatthey do, although they also acknowledge that society has a hand inshaping people. This justifies wanting society to engage in preventionand rehabilitation, but in a way that still makes the individualresponsible. Although these models are couched in scientific andhumanitarian language, there is nevertheless trenchant resistance tothem.Thisispartiallyoutoffeartheycouldleadbacktotheoldharshhandling of people that previously occurred before disease modelsreframed addicts from “bad” to “sick.” The line between responsibilityandblame,aswellasrehabilitationandpunishment,isthinindeed.Wewill only be concernedwithmodern responsibility theories thatdirectly challengeviewingaddictionas an illness, andwhichpostulatethat choice and will power (taking responsibility) are the way torecovery. Whereas loss of control is at the core of disease models,denyingtheaddictisreallyoutofcontrolisatthecoreofresponsibilitymodels.

Responsibility frameworks break down in two places. Few wouldargue that a person is totally immune from social contexts. Evidenceshows that somecontextsproducemoreaddiction thanothers.Sohowandwheredoesoneaffixresponsibility(mostlyaeuphemismforblame)—onthepersonoronsociety?Thisleadstoaconfusingdoublemessage:“Peoplemustbeheldresponsible,butsocietyisalsotoblame.”The most telling place where these models go awry is in the

presumptionthataddictsarecapableofbeingincontrolwhentheywantorneed tobe.There isanunwarrantedassumption that ifaddiction isnotadisease,thencontrolisn’treallydestroyed.Sometheorists“prove”thisbyshowingthatseeminglossofcontrolisinconsistent.Heremanystudiesandexperiments(ininstitutionalsettings)arecited,showingthatso-called addicts can control, regulate, and adjust their intake andbehaviortoaccommodatechangingcircumstances—includingwhattheycangetawaywith.Inallthistheunfoundedpresuppositionisthatlossofcontrolhastobeconsistentforittobereal.Thisunderliesthefaultyconclusionthatshowingaddictscanexercisecontrolinhighlycontrolledsituationsprovestheyarecapableofdoingitwhenevertheysochoose.Thisnon sequitur not only leaves no room for unconscious factors andcontextual influences,butcontradicts thevery realanddeep feelingofbeing out of control which those addicted have experienced.Responsibilitymodelsalsoleaveunexplainedwherethiscuriousdrivetoself-destructionthroughexcesscomesfrom.Thesemodels are correct in asserting that addicts are not as out of

control as they often appear. But they fall down in assuming thattherefore the addict is really in control, and thus all that’s needed areways to increase options andwill power so the right decisions can bemade.Theirpremiseisthataddictscancontroltheirlives—solet’shelpthemdoitbetter.Thesolutionhereisthataddictsmustbemadetotakeresponsibilityfortheiractionsandbehelped(notcoddled)intomakingthe right choices.Of course, these “right choices”are theonesalignedwith society’s values.What this actuallymeans is helping the sociallysanctioned self, the goodself, keep control. This does not address theproblemthatmanyoftheseveryvaluesdividepeople’spsychetowhereaddictionbecomesacompulsivemechanismofrelease.Some who favor responsibility models fear that defining addicts as

sick or handicapped could protect them by law from facing the

consequencesoftheiractions.Acorollaryfearisthatprotectingthemassickcouldpotentiallypunishthosenotunderthisumbrella.Forinstance,this could force employers to keep those who claim to be recoveringaddicts overmore responsible candidates. This in effectwould rewardpeople for being addicts. Another major worry of some responsibilityproponents is that the diseasemodel underminesmoral responsibility,and thus the very fabric of society. The fear is that denyingresponsibility and choice exacerbates the moral breakdown currentlyunderway.Our view is different:We see the overallmoral breakdownthat isoccurringworldwidenotasan indicationof thepresent lackofmoral fiber in people, but rather as due to the crumbling of age-oldauthoritarianmoralitiesthatmanypeoplecannolongerliveby.Responsibilitymodelscanonlyofferreprogrammingthatattempts tostrengthenthewill,trainingpeopleto“beresponsible”—meaningchoosesocially sanctioned behavior. It is not surprising that often themethodology utilized for change involves behavior modificationtechniquesbasedonconditioningproceduresofrewardandpunishment.Rewards and social reinforcements can strengthen the goodself;punishment, especially if severe enough, can contain the badself.However, these short-term solutions not only leave the root of theproblem untouched, but they, like the disease model, exacerbate theinnersplitbyonlystrengtheningthegoodself.Those who promulgate responsibility as the key to dealing withaddictionsdo seeclearly thatdiseasemodels fosteravictimmentality.Theyholdthattakingresponsibilityisnecessarytoempowertheaddicttochange,whilefeelingthehelplessvictimofadubiousdiseasepandersto irresponsibility—offering merely an excuse, not an explanation orsolution.Yethavingasplit,warringpsychewhereeachsidevictimizestheotherdoesbringaboutalossofpowerandcontrolthatmakespeoplefeel like victims. The diseasemodel does bolster the victim stance bybuilding an ideology claiming that mainly biological forces controlwhat’sgoingon.Seeingaddictionasbiologicallybasedessentiallymeansbeing a victim of one’s own body. Legitimizing the victim mentalityexacerbates the inner battle by reinforcing the badself’s capacity forsabotage (“I can’t help myself”) and the goodself’s need for constantvigilance, which further breaks down self-trust. We are all victims ofcircumstanceinonewayoranother,buttofeellikeavictimofoneself

(genes,etc.)makesself-trustimpossible.What responsibility models do not do well is explain the very real

feeling people have of being out of control. Although it is true thatpeoplewillreadilylatchontoagoodexcuse,themoreimportantreasonwhysomanypeopleresonatewiththeideathataddictionisadiseaseisthat theyhave truly feltoutofcontrol.Todate, thediseasemodelhasbeen theonly theory toproposea cause for thispeople can somewhatunderstand.Responsibilityframeworksreallycannotevenacknowledge,let alone handle, a truly out-of-control factor. For if you’re not incontrol, how can you be held responsible? Actually, beneath theiradversarial stance, the twomodels share a commonmoral frame thatgeneratesapsycheatwarwithitself.Theyareoppositereflectionsofthesamepolarizedmoralorderthatcanonlyviewproblematicbehavioraseither sick or wrong. They mainly differ in their strategies forstrengtheningthegoodself.In contrast, the model of a divided psyche does not promulgate a

victimmentality;yetneitherdoesitnegatetheinnerexperienceofthosewhoattimesdofeeldrivenandhelpless.Italsoallowsforinconsistencyaroundcontrol.Fromourperspective,whatarecalledaddictivetypesorpersonalities (thoseprone toaddiction)utilize thebattle for control toexpress their deep internal division, which permits occasional escapefromtheirinnerauthoritarian.Thebattleitselfbecomesthefocalpointoflife.Thisiswhytheycanhaveseveraladdictionsormovefromonetoanother. Our framework views self-destructiveness as inherent in thedivided self as each side tries to dominate the other. In addiction thebadself isusuallytheunderdogusingwhatevermeansitcantodestroythecontrolsofthegoodself.Proponentsofdiseaseandresponsibilityframeworksfordealingwith

addiction both show evidence that their approaches can at times helppeople gain control over their lives. Their criteria for successunderstandably is a lessening of the use and abuse of substances overtime. We do not question the value of systems of relief that offerindividual or even short-term help. But we do not think that eithertheorycanstemtherisingtideofout-of-controlbehaviorbecauseneitherreallyaddressesthebasicissuesinvolvedintheverynatureofcontrol.

TwelveStepstoWhere?

Thediseasemodelshiftstheframeworkofaddictionfrom“bad”to“sick”byviewingaddictsasvictimswhoareoutofcontrol.Butitdoessobyfostering the idea that the individual is powerless in the face of theaddiction. Its strategies for help involve reinforcing the control of thegoodself, ensuring the person remains divided. One way the goodselfmaintainscontrolisthroughbeingamemberofagroupthatrewardsitsvalues.Withtheerosionoftraditionalstructuresthathavefunctionedasasupportforthegoodself(church,community,family),12-Stepgroupshavecometofillthatvacuum.Ironically,thelabel“self-help”hasbeenaffixedtotheseverygroupsthatfosterthebeliefthatpeoplearehelplessontheirown.It is no accident that approaches that work by supporting and

strengthening the innerauthoritarian throughgrouppressure favor thediseasemodel.Theprevalent12-Stepgroupsworkonlyif thereis totalcapitulationtotheirprecepts—the12Steps.Thediseasemodelfurthersthisalongbylockinginthebeliefinone’shelplessnessthatisnecessaryforsuchsubmission.The12Stepsareauthoritarian insofaras theyareunchallengeable rules to live by. The demands can be summarized as:admissionofultimatepowerlessness; total surrender toahigherpower(God); working to eliminate character defects with the help of thishigher power; doing amea culpa and making amends; helping othersthroughspreadingthismessage(theWord).Although eventually Alcoholics Anonymous embraced the

physiological disease model, originally it looked at drunkenness as acharacterdefectandthusfocusedontraditionalmoralbetterment.So,itisnot surprising that thevaluesunderlying the12Steps come straightfromreligion’smoraldivisionbetweengoodandevil.Whatever“higherpower” one surrenders to, however personal, eclectic, or seeminglymodern, the morality that is assumed to flow from it is traditional,devaluingbothcarnality(theanimal)andself-centeredness.Poweristhekeywordin“higherpower,”asthegoodselfgainsstrengthbydrawingon the idea of an omniscient power that defines virtue. The way the

higherpower isenvisioneddoesn’tmatterbecause it isstill thesource,support,andmoralfoundationofthegoodself.Likemostauthoritarians,thegoodselfseekspowerunderthepresumptionthat“Itknowsbest.”Since A.A. is the original 12-Step organization and model fornumerous others, we focus mainly on it. Although overtly leaderless(actually,old-timemembersassumeleadershiproles),A.A.sharesmanyfeatures of authoritarian cults: an unchallengeable written authority(“The Word”); commandments or rules to live by; a conversionexperience achieved through inducing surrender to a super-humanpower; and dependency on the group, which often underminesrelationshipswiththosewhodonotacceptthesanctityofthe12Steps.DisagreementwithanyoftheStepsislabeleddenialorresistance.Likeother authoritarian groups that manipulate fear and desire, fear ofleaving is instilled by the often repeated warning “You can’t make itwithoutus.”As is true of every authoritarian structure, surrender is the key tomakingitwork.PartOneofthisbookdetailshowtheactofsurrenderitself has potent psychological repercussions. Giving control tosomething envisioned as more powerful and worthy than oneself notonly temporarily eliminates conflict, but often enables one to feelrenewed and even reborn. Feeling “reborn” is characteristic of allreligiousconversionexperienceswhich,whencombinedwithrepentanceandamends,givesanauraofwipingthemoralslateclean.InA.A.whatoneisactuallysurrenderingtoarethe12Stepsandtheunchallengeableassertion that ifone“works theSteps”properlyand longenough, theywill perform the miracle of sobriety. But this miracle still requirescontinual group support because the 12 Steps do not eliminate one’sinner split, but rather act to strengthen one side by suppressing theother.Thegoodselfcannotcontainthebadselfallonitsown,nomatterhow lofty an ideology it assumes (or surrenders to). This is why it isimportantforsuchprogramstohavepeopleacknowledgepowerlessnessforlife,andthusbeincontinualneednotonlyofthe12-Stepideology,butofgroupsupport.TheA.A.modelnotonlyprogramspeoplenottotrustthemselves,self-mistrust is essential for it towork. Its litany is “The 12 Stepswork—don’t question them.”When someone does drop out, sure enough theaddiction(thebadself)resurfaces—aswarned.OnreturningtoA.A.,the

“We told you so” smug reproof further locks in the belief of beingpowerless.Thegroupacts like a chorusof goodselveswhose refrain is“You’ll always lose control on your own.”A.A. interprets its ability topredict relapses as a verification of its ideology (rather than of itsineffectiveness), using this to tighten authoritarian control over itsmembers.But themodelofadividedselfexplains farbetterwhyevenafteryearsofsobrietythesiren-songofexcesslurksbeneaththesurface,leavingnochoicebutto“takeit[sobriety]onedayatatime.”Anycompulsionoraddictionmustcontainadeepfearofapaststatethat in some fashion theaddictionameliorates.What isoften feared isthe dry, regimented life of being bottled up by the goodself with nooutlets.Thusthelifethebadselfcreateshastobecomereallybad,oftenlife-threatening, before sobriety, which here means a return to theconstraints of the goodself, has any real appeal. This is why A.A.continuallyemphasizesaddictsneedtohitbottomtochange.A.A. can serveasa stepping stone tomajor life changes. Somehavesuccessfullyused it togain stability longenough to shiftprioritiesandfind other sources of fulfillment. The strongest argument for suchprogramsisthattheywork,orrather,workbetteronamassscale,andcost less, than anything else available. Although there are some,particularlyproponentsofresponsibilitymodels,whoseriouslychallengethe long-term efficacy of A.A. and its success rate. How well A.A.actuallyworks isnotour focus.Authoritarian structuresofall sortsdoindeedworktothedegreethat those inthemobeytheirprecepts.Likemost authoritarian belief systems, the 12 Steps provide a powerful,mechanical strategy with fairly predictable results for those whoconform.A key question is how is “work” defined? We do not doubt thatabstinencethroughA.A.couldbefarbetterforsomethantheirpreviousdesperate, dysfunctional lives. These programs can enable dividedpeopletofunctioninasocialorderwhosevaluespromulgatetheirinnerdivision. Yet leading a manageable life only through believing one isunalterably sick is a very limited view of recovery. If stability isdependentoncontinuallyacknowledgingone’sbasicpowerlessness,itisseriously flawed. What remains is the underlying fear that one isuntrustworthyatthedeepestlevel.“Cures” that do not bring an integration are disabling in their own

way. People who fear being taken over at any instant by an elementwithinthemselvesarecrippled,thoughoftenlessovertlysothanbeforethegoodself(withoutsidehelp)gainedtheupperhand.Anyframeworkthat does not take the division within people into account can nevertruly implementacure, ifbycureonemeansan integratedbeingwhohasself-trust,andthusisnotsusceptibletoauthoritarianmanipulation.Toliveinfearofoneselfistobepsychologicallycrippled.A way of taking issue with our perspective takes this form: “Being

critical without offering something better is questionable at best andarrogantatworst.”Weareinnowaysayingthatpeopleandtheworld(asitisnow)wouldbebetteroffwithoutsuchprograms.Peopledowhattheymusttofunctionandsurvive.Thischapterdoesnotofferasimplecure nor a specific therapy for addiction. Rather, it places the kind ofaddictionthatinvolvesconflictovercontrolwithinthebasicframeworkof authoritarianism. Our purpose is not only to show why suchaddictionsbelongthere,buttoofferadifferentframeforviewingitthatdoesnotfosteradaptationtoadysfunctionalsocialcontextthatisitselfincreasinglyoutofcontrol.Any“help”thatcontainsunwantedbehaviorsthroughgeneratingself-mistrust is just theoldauthoritarianmachineryindisguise.Andalthough thismaybring some relief, it does soat thehighcostoffurthercripplingself-trust.Ifaddictionisanillness,thediseaseisauthoritarianism.Asinsomany

otherareas,thecuresocietyoffersfortheillsitcreatesandexacerbatesthrough coercion is more coercion. Not only are 12-Step programsauthoritarian,people(teens,employees,drunkdrivers,wife-beaters)arebeing coerced to enter them as an alternative to more severepunishment. The 12 Steps work to the extent they do because theymirror the divisionwithin the social andmoral order, helping dividedpeople fit into a society that helped divide them. Authoritarianstructureshavebeen inoperation formillenniabecause they “work”—i.e., they are good at accomplishing certain ends. But, by defining therules,limits,andframeworkofchangeinadvance,theyareincompatiblewithatrulyevolutionarymodel.Itisnotsurprisingthatasocietywithapolarizedmoralityandadeep

fundamentalist strain frames addiction as either bad or sick—“sick”becomes an ambiguous category that is at least not bad. The sombertruth is that addicts are neither ill nor evil, but caught up in a social

context, as we all are, that makes sanity and wholeness difficult toachieve.Whenever therootof theproblemis thecontext,whichexistsnot only in social structures but also in people’s minds, there is adifferentwaytoimplementchangeotherthanthroughtherapies,cures,andbehavioralcontrols.Tryingtoshiftadeeplyingrained,eventhoughoutmoded, social and moral context can seem hopeless. But once itbegins to lose its power to define and thus control, personal andeventually social change begin to accelerate. The remainder of thischapterspeakstothis,withbroaderconcernsthanjustaddiction.

DevelopingWholenessandSelf-Trust

Feeling powerless and needing to surrender to an authority, be it apersonor an ideology, is a deeppart of ourheritage. The struggle forcontrolbetweenthegoodself(thecompartmentthathasadoptedvaluesthatcannotbelivedupto)andthebadself(thepartjudgedtobebase)hasramificationsfarbeyondtheindividuallevel.Historically,inculturesthathavetakenonthisdivision,controllingpeoplethroughanideologythat fosters an inner splitmakes controlmuch easier on a large scale.Oncethisdivisiontakesholdandthebattleforinnercontrolensues,thesure outcome is loss of self-trust. Once self-trust is lost, looking to anexternalauthorityisinevitable.Traditionalreligionsthatsetupthedivisionbetweenthespiritualand

the carnal, the selfless and the self-centered, propped up the goodselfthrough threat and promise. With their moral authority they justifiedhierarchical authority, which made control at all levels of societypossible. This reached deep into the basic unit of control where thisdivisionandtheself-mistrustthatcomesfromitarefirstimplanted—thefamily. The traditional family conditions obedience to authority byunderminingself-trust.15Itisironicthattheso-calledself-helpprogramswiththeir12Stepscreateanextendedfamilythatdoesthesamething—undermineself-trust.The spread of addiction is just one sign that the traditional moral

props thathavekept thedevaluedpartsofbeinghumancontainedarenot working. From our perspective it is authoritarianism, not limitedabilities, that is preventing our species from finding solutions tocontrolling its self-destructive habits and appetites. Similarly, it is theinner authoritarian preventing people from finding new solutions totheir own self-destructive proclivities. In order not to be subject toauthoritarian control, whether internal or external, one must have abasicself-trust,whichcanonlycomeifoneisnotatwarwithoneself.Itis trulyunknownwhatpeople’spotentialwouldbe if theywerenotatwarwith themselves,aswellaswithothers.The twotypesofconflict,internal and external, are not unrelated, as authoritarian hierarchy

fostersboth.16Human beings are capable of and also need a wide spectrum ofexpressionwhichhasbeendividedbytheoldmoralordersintowhatisconsideredthegood(withselflessnessas theparagonofgoodness)andthebad(theselfish).Oncethissplitisinternalized,thegoodselfbecomesthe innerauthoritarian trying tokeepthedevaluedaspects submerged.Impossible ideals eventually give rise to extreme reactions. Theoccurrenceofarampantidontheloose(primitiveself-centeredness)ora shallow society of me-firsters is far more likely in a world whosedualisticmoralbasedividespeopleinternally.Theworldwearelivinginis a testament to this. Actually real altruism—real selfless action notbasedontryingto liveupto idealsandimages,butwhichcomesfromempathyandcare—isfarmorelikelyinawholeperson.Wholeness is not a chimerical nor fanciful concept. Thosewhohaveassociated with tribal people sometimes marvel at their seemingwholenesscomparedtousmore“civilized”folk.Theyinturnmarvelathow we can complicate what for them are the simplest things. Theirmysteriouswholeness basically derives from animisticworldviews thatdo not dualistically separate the spiritual from nature, thus internallydividing them.17 Althoughmuch can be learned from examiningwhatmakessuchpeoplefeelwholeinthemselves,connectedwithothers,andin harmony with nature, their ways cannot be imposed on a moderntechnological culture. This is because their solution for curbing self-centeredness involves minimizing individuation and thus innovation.Whensuchculturesfacetheneedtochangetheyusuallydisintegrate,astheydon’thavetheinternalmechanismstodoso.Yetthatsuchpeopleexist at all shows that being divided is culturally imposed rather thanhumannature.Thereisauseoftheword“wholeness”currentlyinvoguethatreallycomesfromtheoldpolarizedmoralorder.Heretheidealofwholenessisreallyselflessnessindisguise,forawholepersonispresentedasgiving,unconditionally loving, “a light unto oneself”—meaning not needingothers,andthelike.Withinthisviewtheso-called“negative”emotions(i.e., anger, possessiveness, and the need for self-enhancement) haveeitherbeenconqueredorare sufficiently small soas tono longerbeaproblem.Here,intryingtobecomewhole,whatpeopleareinadvertentlydoingistryingtobecomebetterbycurbingthebadself.Notsurprisingly,

the way to achieve such wholeness is often thought to be throughfollowing teachers, including gurus, who present themselves as beingwhole.Allthisisjusttheoldauthoritarianmoralitywithitsrenunciatevalues that perpetuate inner conflict. Bringing division whilemasqueradingundertheconceptofwholenessisjustanotherexampleofhowauthoritarianpowerhidesbehindgoodselfideals.Survival problems are global, involving the whole world. From ourperspective it will take peoplewho arewhole to create the structuresthat can keep theworld afloat. A conundrum for the times is how tobecomewhole in social orders that create and reward divided people.Thisdilemmaisonereasontheframeworkweareofferingdoesnotlenditselftoafaciletherapythatcanhelppeoplefitintotheexistentpowerstructures.Fortherealproblemsarenotmerelypersonal,butstructural.Ultimately a morality is needed that can develop whole peoplethroughintegratingandvaluingbothsidesofthedividedself.Whatthiswouldnecessarilymeanissynthesizingthespiritualandanimal(carnal),theselflessandself-centered,thealtruisticandegoistic,sotheycanlivecomfortablywitheachother.Thisinvolvesintegratingthelife-affirmingaspects that areusually expressedby thebadself: the spontaneous, theimmediate, thepleasure-oriented, the so-called lazy (really thatpartofoneself that can luxuriate in timeless leisure). It does not meandiscardingtheequallyvaluabletraitsofthegoodself:theproductive,thecapacitytodeferimmediatepleasuresforfutureresults,theresponsible(the capacity to respond that takes account of implications), and thetrulyaltruistic.What todo?Howdoesadividedpersonmove towardwholeness? Ifauthoritarianismisattherootofthedivision,thenbeingtoldwhattodocannot be the answer to building self-trust.Once trust is lost betweenpeople it is difficult to rebuild; the same holds truewhen self-trust islost. So how does one build self-trust if it’s not there? This personaldilemma is similar toaparallelquandaryon the social level:Howcanpeople restructure social systems, a world leading to self-destruction,while having to operate within those very systems? Restructuring,whetherpsychologicalorsocial,isabitlikepickingoneselfupbyone’sownbootstraps.The key to building self-trust in a changing world is the ability toutilizeone’sownexperience,includingmistakes,tochange.Thiscanbe

doneevenifonedoesnotinitiallytrustoneself.Self-trustisgainedonlybyexperiencingpositivechangethroughutilizingone’sfeedback,whichbegins to break the loopwheremistrust breedsmistrust. Being in thethroes of an internalwar is onehuge piece of feedback, not only thatone’s life isn’tworking, but also that one has a divided psychewhoseparts thrive on the conflicts and drama engendered. Moreover, beingfragmentedmakesitnighimpossibletotellthedifferencebetweenwhatone really wants and “shoulds,” which are often mistaken for truedesires.Conflict,resistance,procrastination,andguiltcanbeindicationsofadividedselfthatactsdifferentlythanitthinksitought.We have no easy fixes to offer, yet one must start somewhere.

Addictionhasitsownself-perpetuatingmomentum.Partofwhatmakesaddictionaclosedsystemistheframeworkinwhichitisviewedbytheperson andby society at large.Changing the basic framework cannotonlyopenthesystem,butbegins tochangeaperson’scapacitytoreadandintegratefeedback.Fortunately,oncerestructuringissetinmotion,if it brings a more appropriate way of dealing with life, it too has amomentumof its own. Societal structures, interpersonal activities, andevenwhatoneoftenconsiders the foundationofone’sownpersonalityare interwoven. Theway they are constructed and viewed is largely afunctionofthehumanmind,whichneedsframeworksbothtointegrateexperience and to have a culture that can be passed on to the nextgeneration. Thus a shift inmental structures literally changes thewayoneperceivesbothoneselfandtheworldatlarge.Suchshiftsarealwaysaprerequisiteoflastingchange.Itisourhopethattheperspectivesofferedinthisbookcanbeatool

for broadening awareness of the insidious and destructive nature ofauthoritariancontrol—whetherexternalorinternal.Seeingthenatureofthe division in oneself, including how both sides need each other toexist,begins todefuse thepowerof each.The innerbattledependsonthedynamicsbetweenthetwoselvesremainingunconscious,andsothemoreconsciousone isof the splitand its ramifications, theeasier it isnottobemechanicallydrivenbyit.Onceonebeginstoseethewaythesystemworks,thepartsbegintolosetheirmysterioushold.Theproblemisthatmuchofpersonalityisbuiltuponthisdivisionsothatwhenbothsides losepower, it can feel empty,andperhapsevenabit likedying.Yetitisonlythroughacapacitytodietoaspectsofoneselfthatarenot

viablethatanytransformationensues.Becominginterestedinseeingthenatureofthegamebringsacrucialshiftinawarenessthatallowsonetodiscoverforoneselftheworkingsofone’s own inner battle. Replacing the reactiveness of each side withcuriosityandarespectthatacknowledgestheimportanceofeachcanbethe beginning of a more healthy inner dialogue. Both the good andbadselfhavepowerful,compartmentalized,subjectivefiltersthatjustifynot only their existence, but their right to maintain rigid control.Becominginterestedinthenatureofthetwoselvesandtheircollusionsbringsanemotionaldetachmentfromthedramathatcanallowthetwosidestointegrate.Fromthismoreobjectivevantagepointthetwoselvescan be viewed as a mechanical, static system in which neither sidevalues nor trusts the other’s point of view. This more inclusiveperspectivecanallowonetotranscendthepowerstruggleaswholenessgraduallydevelops,andwithitamorefulfillinglife.Substance abuse is also an area where the problems lie not insubstances, but in having people who are not whole. Now andthroughout history, people have been using substances to alterconsciousness in just about every culture known. There are scientistswho maintain that not only do humans have a drive to alterconsciousness,butsodomanyotheranimalsaswell.Thisisbackedbybothethologicalandlaboratorystudies.Whetherthisistrueornot,theidea that ideology and repressionwill stopmost people fromusing orabusingsubstancesiswhistlinginthewind.Withoutaninnersplit,substanceswouldnotbeneededtoreleasethecaged beast. Just aswholeness involves developing one’s own relationwithcontrolandspontaneity,awholepersoncanalsodevelopahealthyrelation to substances. Once the realization that one is notfundamentallyself-destructivebeginstogrow,self-trustandself-controlalsogrow.Thisoccursnotthrougheffort,butratherasonestopsdoingwhatinterfereswithliving.Sinceinthisarenatherecanbenoformulas,this would look different in different people. Some might decide thatusingcertainsubstancesatcertaintimesenhancestheirlivesandwouldusethemaslongasthiswereso.Othersmightfindsubstancesirrelevantto their lives and simply not use them. Still others might decide thatsubstancesareahindrancetostrengtheningtheirwholeselfandwouldstop as long as they felt this way, without having to make absolute

promisestothemselvesaboutanunknownfuture.Resolutionsoftenstemfromfearofoneself.Bycreatingacagethebadselfreactsagainst,suchpromises become inverted self-fulfilling prophecies in that they bringabouttheoppositeofwhatishopedfor.This,ofcourse,alsoerodesself-trust.The emerging whole self does not judge the badself nor make

resolutions like the goodself. Rather, it utilizes the information fromeach to construct something different and viable. This process isnecessarily self-referential and thus involves paying attention tofeedbackofallkindsonadailybasis:Whatbringsanddeflatesenergy?Are one’s “shoulds” and “oughts” (alongwith their rewards)what onereally wants or were they mechanically programmed? Is the overallcontextofone’s lifeenhancingorunfulfilling?Pain is information thatrevealsthelimitsofpleasure(i.e.,whenpleasurecrossesoverintoself-destruction). Really, neither substances nor ostensible susceptibility tothem is the problem. Once the good and badselves are disempoweredthrough awareness and a way of living that makes them irrelevant,substances no longer trigger repressed energy that makes one “losecontrol.”Ineachmomentlifecontainsboththeaccumulationsofthepastand

theseedsof the future.Creatingsomethingnewoutof theold iswhatmakes the future different. Authoritarian moralities do not value orsupport anything that threatens their hold on people’s minds. This iswhycreativityisoftentakenoverbythebadself.Itisnotunusualtoseeitassociatedwithself-destructiveness.Some,beingoutofstepwiththesocialorder,canonlyloosentheconstraintsoftheirinnerauthoritarianthroughdrugsor“anti-social”behavior.Addiction is just one expression of a world that is morally

dysfunctional. The old moral orders used to work neatly withinaccumulationsocietiesthatutilizedauthoritarianhierarchiesofpowertomaintainorder.Moralities that adulate sacrificedictate the sacrificeofthe individual towhateverhighercausethepower-holdersconstructashigher.Havingpeoplewhoareinwardlydividedwithoutself-trust,whoaregivensomesecurityandamodicumofauthorityoverothersbasedonacceptingtheirpositioninthehierarchy,makesauthoritarianpowerwork.(Eventhelowest-rankedmalesweregivenauthoritarianpowerinthefamily.)

Feelingsofpowerlessnessthatgofarbeyondaddictionarerife.Thisisbecause the old authoritarian mechanisms for bestowing power arecrumbling—crumblingbecausetheyarenotviableinaworlddemandingmore awareness and consciousness from all of humanity in order tosurvive. In this time of social andmoral upheaval, whole not dividedpeople are needed to help construct survival-oriented strategies andstructures. We are not suggesting there is a simplistic, universalexplanation for all the world’s ills. However, any moral system thatdeniesordevaluesbasichumandispositionsmustdividepeople’s innerbeing.Thisresultsinanongoingbattleforcontrolwithawidearrayofdysfunctionalanddestructiveconsequences.Giventhatauthoritarianismisdeeplyembeddedinthemoralityandsocializationprocessofmuchoftheworld, it is not outlandish to postulate it is a core elementwithinplanetaryproblems.The old mechanisms of social control are predicated on group

cohesion,rewardsforobedience,andfear.Whathasbeenfearedisnotonly punishment in secular spheres, but also that an omniscientintelligenceistallyingupthemoralscorethatwilldecideone’sfate(inthis life or the next). Social control depended upon a propped-upgoodself.Nowthepropsare failing, the socialorder isbreakingdown,and badselves are breaking out all over. Rampant addiction is aparticularlygraphicsymptomofasocietygoneawry.AnysolutionthatdoesnotaddressthisismerelyaBand-Aidthatmissesthemark.Insteadoftryinghardertofortifythegoodself,whichwillnotwork,aprocess-orientedmoralityisnecessarythatcanhelpbringaboutwholepeople.This is why we call addiction a moral disorder. The challenge the

world faces is not only restructuring the authoritarian sociopoliticalmechanisms of power and control, but also restructuring theauthoritarianclimateofvalues to fosterhumanbeingswhocanwhollyexpressthefullrangeofbeinghuman.Globalsurvivalcanoccuronlybyunleashinghumanity’spotentialforintelligenceandcreativity.Thus,notfosteringwhole people is now the real threat.Wemaintainwholenesscanoccuronlythroughtrulycaringaboutsomethingotherthanoneself,without denying one’s interest in personal enhancement. On a largersocialscalethiswouldnecessitateamorelivablemoralframeworkthatgivesequalvalidityandvaluetoboththeselflessandtheself-centered.Ourperspective ofwholeness couldbe criticized as another panacea

that isnotwithintherangeofmostpeople,whohavetostrugglewiththe harsh constrictions of their lives and the reality of who they are.Consequently,itsrelevancecouldbequestioned.Itistruethatbecomingwholeinvolvesthekindofdeepchangesthataredifficult.Nevertheless,to bring about a workable world more people must become whole,throughwhateverprocessormiracle.Dividedpeoplecannottrulytrustthemselvesandsomust look toauthorities for their senseofworth,aswellastosolvetheendlessconflictsbeingdividedbrings.Unlessasocialmovement toward wholeness occurs, which means new values, theanswertothequestion“Whoisincontrol?”willbesadlyrepetitious:itwill be those people and structures whose vested interests and powerdepend upon having divided, fearful people.Herewho is in control isultimatelywhoeverorwhatevercontrolsthemindbydividingit.Thisisthedeepestmeaningofmindcontrol.1Contrarytopopularconceptions,thedosageofmostsubstancesthatleadtoaddictioncannotbeendlesslyincreased,sohabitualuserseventuallyarriveatastableintake.2“ThePower ofAbstraction: The SacredWord and theEvolution ofMorality” examines thewayhierarchicalsocialordersbasedonaccumulationbothcreateandreinforcethesepolarities,whichinturndefinewhatismoralandimmoral.3“Religion, Cults, and the Spiritual Vacuum”; “Dualism and Renunciation” in “Oneness,Enlightenment, and the Mystical Experience”; and the last three sections in “The Power ofAbstraction”discussthenatureandproblemsofmoralsystemsthatpromulgaterenunciation.4“ThePowerofAbstraction”showsthatthewayconceptssuchasselflessandself-centeredareplacedinoppositionistheresultofapolarizedmoralorder.“WhatisSelflessServiceServing?”inControldiscussestheself-centeredcomponentinenactingidealsofselflessnessandgivesanin-depthexplanationofwhyanysolutionthatmakesselflessnessaprescriptionforlivingnotonlydoesnotwork,butcontainstheseedsofcorruptionandfurtherreactiveness.5“LoveandControl:TheConditionsUnderlyingUnconditionalLove”showshowthe idealofselflessnessisdestructivetorelationships.6See“SatanismandtheWorshipoftheForbidden:WhyItFeelsGoodtoBeBad”formoreonpossession.7“TheAmbiguityofParentalAuthority”inControlgoesintothis.8See“SatanismandtheWorshipoftheForbidden.”9“WhyPoliticians Lie” inControl describeswhy a dualisticmorality creates a schizophrenicsocietypronetocorruption,deceit,andhypocrisy.10It could be worthwhile to use the good/badself framework to analyze the dynamics ofcontrol,reactiveness,andcollusionswithincouples,families,groupsandrelationshipsingeneral.(A person’s goodself or badself can try to control, seduce, and punish the good or badself ofothers,etc.)

11“Self-Sacrifice, Power, and Passion” in “Love and Control: The Conditions UnderlyingUnconditional Love” discusses the relation between self-sacrifice and power in the traditionalmotherrole,andhowthisaffectswomensoinvolved.12See“SatanismandtheWorshipoftheForbidden.”“Abortion:TheOldMoralityisKillingUs”inControldiscussesthelinkbetweenunwanted,uncaredforchildrenandsuchviolence.13“Love and Control” shows why it is no coincidence that most personal violence occurswithin the family, where unlivable ideals and the taboo against boundaries exacerbate thegoodself/badselfsplit.Itssection“ForgivingandLettingGo”discusseswhythegoodselfidealofforgivenessasavirtuerewardsabusivepatterns.Thisisespeciallyeasytodowhentheabuser’sgoodself becomes remorseful. The section on “Love Addiction” describes how imbalances ofpowercanmechanicallyarousepassion,sometimesfeedingabusivepatterns.14This has a structural similarity to satanism, which purports to end the battle throughaggressivelyaffirmingthe“bad.”See“Satanism.”15“Love and Control” shows why the family, which promulgates the highest ideals aroundopenness,support,loyalty,andunconditionalacceptance,notonlyfostersthegood/badselfsplit,but is also where the badself most usually and violently displays itself. “The Ambiguity ofParental Authority” in Control describes at length the ways self-mistrust is conditioned byparents.16See“Authority,Hierarchy,andPower.”17ThechaptersonanimisminControldiscussthis.

T

LoveandControlTheConditionsUnderlyingUnconditionalLove

he experience of love is so primary and vital that examining itcouldriskmissingitsessence.Wetakethisriskbecause,likeitor

not, experiences of love are conceptualized, and theways this is doneimpacttheongoingnatureoftheexperience.Ifidealsofwhatloveis,orshould be, come from authoritarian ideologies, love becomes anotherhuman emotion that is often unknowingly bent to the service ofauthoritariancontrol.Moreover, if idealsabout loveareunlivable, thisboth distorts emotions and makes covert control in the name of loveinevitable.Inordertoclarifywhywethinkitimportanttoexamineloveand control together, we first map out the basic issues and concernsbeforegoingintospecificareasandmorepracticalexamples.Manypeoplewanttokeeploveandcontrolseparate,perhapsbecause

theyhaveexperiencedbeingcontrolledinthenameoflove.Parentsgiveand withhold affection as reward and punishment, as do adults witheachother.TraditionalreligionshaveGodgiveloveforobedience,andmake obedience the proof of loving God. Love for king or country isdisplayedbyawillingnesstodieorkillforthem.Motherswhouseself-sacrificing love togenerateguilt as awayof controlling their childrenarelegendinpsychologicalliterature.Examplesaboundofutilizingthepower of love to control. What these examples have in common areconditions;thatis,receivingloveisdependentuponmeetingexternallyimposedconditions.Isthereakindoflovethatdoesnotsetconditionsorboundaries,that

does notwax andwanewith the vicissitudes of time? The concept ofsuchaloveanditsexistenceareveryimportanttomanypeople,bothtobe able to give and receive it. Unconditional love is presented as thepinnacleoflove.Theconceptpermeatesourcultureandfantasiesandisdescribedinmanyways:eternallove,absolutelove,undyinglove,true

love,selflesslove,purelovethatasksfornoreturn,lovethatknowsnobounds and does not measure, love as total acceptance, and love soboundlessitcanencompasseveryone,perhapseveneverything,withoutpreference.Are there then two kinds of love—conditional and unconditional,impureandpure, temporal andeternal, carnal and spiritual?Or is theformer an inferior and incomplete expression of the latter? Or isconditionallovenotreallyloveatall,butratherahiddenexpressionofself-centereddesires?Oras somecynicshave said, isall lovemerelyaromantic invention? From our perspective, the above questions comefrom a specific framework about love—a framework that artificiallydividestheselflessfromtheself-centered.Ourmainconcernistoshowthisdivisionisattherootoftheconfusionsaboutlove.At this pointwe ask the indulgence of the readerwhomay becomeimpatientwithsuchanalysis,forpopularwisdomhasloveasessentiallyundefinable. Even more, some say any attempt to define it sullies it,destroyingitsmagic.Wedonottakeissuewiththeinabilityofwordstocapturetheessenceoflove.Wordscannotultimatelyencapsulatemuchoflife,letaloneitsdeepestemotionsandexperiences.Evensomethingasprosaic as experiencing the color red cannot really be captured bywords.Yetonecansay that red ismoresimilar toorange than it is togreen;andloveismoresimilartoaffectionthanitistodisinterest.Thepointofthischapterisnottoplaywordgames,buttoshowthatwhatiscalled love is indeed conceptualized, that the ways this is doneinevitably impact the experience of it, and that traditionalconceptualizations are limiting its natural expressions. Moreover, thewayloveisconceivedofispartofthestructureofhiddencontrolwithinasocialorder.

WhatIsUnconditionalLove?

Wedonotdoubtthemagicalqualityoflove,noritscentralimportance.A life without love is barren. Yet people are having difficulties withintimacyandlove—fromtheprevalenceofunhappyandviolentfamilies,divorce,andloneliness,tonewtypesofproblemssuchasreluctancetogetinvolved,“womenwholovetoomuch,”and“loveaddiction.”We focus on the ideal of unconditional love because it is a concept

deeplyinterwoveninthefabricofbothsocialandpersonalcontrol.Wewish to show that the vital human experience of love has beenconceptualizedbyapolarizedmoralorder thatstructures,distorts,andeven sabotages natural expressions of love, care, and bonding. Theconcept of unconditional love does not stand alone but is part of abroaderconstellationofvaluesthatseparatesthepurefromtheimpure,the selfless from the self-centered, and the spiritual from theworldly.These are the two poles around which traditional morality revolves.Whatwewishtoshowishowthispolarizationunrealisticallypitsself-enhancementagainstcare forothers,as if theywere isolated fromandantagonistictoeachother.Theveryidealofunconditional lovecontainsseemingparadoxes.On

onelevelitispresentedaslovebeyondmeasureormeasurement;yetonanotherlevel,itsetsastandardforloveagainstwhichotherexpressionsofitaremeasured.Solovethatdoesnotmeasureismadethemeasureoflove.Also,totheextentthatpeopleneedtoexperiencelove,thatneedisself-centered;yettheneedforlovecanonlybefilledbybreakingoutofself-centeredneeds.DoIloveyousimplybecauseyou’reyou,orbecausedoingsoignitesemotionsinmethatarefulfilling?LoveisonlyfulfillingwhenIbreakoutofmyselfandconnectwithyou.Itcomesbybreakingthrough the boundaries of the very self that needs it. And thatexperienceinturnfeedstheself,somuchsothatonebecomesattachedtowhoorwhateverbringsitabout.Theparadoxstatedanotherwayisthat to satisfy me, I have to break out of me. These conundrums areartificial and unnecessary in that they come from the way thoughtcreates a hard separation between self and other, and between the

selfless and selfish. Unconditional love is a concept that derives fromsuchpolarizations.1Generally,placingconditionsonothersstemsfromsomeself-centeredconcern. Each of the following refers back to oneself: “I’ll keep lovingyouifyoureturnmylove;don’thurtme;dowhatIwant;don’tinterferewith what I want to do; don’t try to change me; make me only feelgood”; etc. Unconditional love can onlymean love that does not varywithhowoneistreated,orwithanythingelse,forthatmatter.Theidealofunconditionalloveisthatitgivesunendinglywithoutmeasure,whileasking fornothing inreturn. It is, inshort, selfless.Also, to feelone istherecipientofunconditional love,whetherfromaperson(mother)oranimageofperfection(Christoraguru),meansfeelingtotallyaccepted,nomatterwhat.Whentheidealsthatsurroundlovecannotbeliveduptobecausetheynegate or demean vital aspects of being human, what results is morethan merely disappointment. The internalization of unrealistic valuesinevitably creates serious personal and relational problems. Insofar aspeopletrytoembodyunlivablevalues, theymusteitherknowinglyfallshort or delude themselves. Also, eventually feeling let down or evenbetrayedisbuiltintohavingsuchexpectationsofothers.Anotherresultof internalizing unlivable ideals is susceptibility to manipulation byindividualswhopurporttoexemplifytheseideals.2To say the concept of unconditional love is part of the foundationaledificeofauthoritarianbeliefsatfirstappearstobeananomaly.Forisitnottheveryantithesisofcontrol?Inordertoclarifythisitisnecessarytoexaminetheseissues:

1.Whytheconceptresonateswithpeopleandhasthegreatappealthatitdoes.2.Theworldviewandimplicationsembeddedintheconcept.3. How the concept is part of a polarized moral order that dualistically separates theselfless fromtheself-centered,valuingthe formeranddenigratingthe latter;andhowthissplitisutilizedforauthoritariancontrol.3

4.Howthewanteithertogiveorreceiveunconditionallovesetsinmotionunconsciousforcesthatkeeppeoplefrombeingwhole.

People flourishwhen feeling connected to others. The question is ifthereis,aswithothersocialanimals,aninbuiltcapacitytoconnect,whyaremanypeopleexperiencinggreatdifficultyindoingso?Inexamining

these issues, we will discuss many problematic aspects of today’srelationships, such as power, control, boundaries, unconscious roles,measuring,holdingon,andforgiving.A good deal of the powerful appeal of the concept of unconditionalloveliesinitnotmerelybeinganabstractfabrication.Itisgroundedinpeople’sexperienceintwoways:attimestheexperienceoflovedoes,inthat moment, feel free of any constraints, boundaries, conditions, orexpectations.Andalso,mostpeoplehavehadaperiod(earlyinfancyatleast)whentheyweretherecipientoftotalacceptance,nomatterwhat.Both experiences are very powerful, the memory of which brings ayearning for their return. There is also a natural desire to feel specialandbelovedandacceptedforwhatoneis,whicheasilytranslatesintoayearningfortotalacceptanceallthetime.If it is possible to experience something akin to unconditional love,both as a giver and receiver, why call it a concept? With sometrepidation, acknowledging the limitations of words, let’s examinewhat’s involved. The actual experiencing of love brings an energy, alevel of excitation that breaks through personal boundaries as oneconnectswithsomethingoutsideoneself. In thatmoment, theconcernsand import of one’s internal dramas vanish. Along with this, anemotionalbathpermeatesthewholenervoussysteminawaythatfeelsmorethangood.Itfeelswonderfulinthefullmeaningoftheword,foritincludesasenseofwonder.Thecapacitytoconnectandbondovertimeispartofbeingasocialanimal.This experience is basic, primary—it is what it is, and while in itsspell,questionsof itsnaturedonotarise. It iswhen its intensity fadesthat themind compares love’s presence to its absence. Then it can bedescribed as timeless, eternal, selfless, conditionless—in short, all thecharacteristics that distinguish it from other experiences. The basicmistake is in taking an experience that feels timeless and saying onecouldandshouldbethatway“allthetime.”Thisineffectputslovebackin time, while projecting timeless qualities onto it. That is, theexperienceoflovewithoutconditionsoccursinatimeless-feelinglivingmoment,buttheconceptofunconditional loveisdrenchedwithfutureconsiderationswhereinoneexpectstoloveorbelovedtimelesslyallthetime. This confusion lies at the heart of the concept of unconditionallove.4

Sowhat?One can easilywonderwhat difference anyof thismakes.This is not merely an intellectual exercise to show logicalinconsistencies. Rather, insofar as unconditional love is considered thepinnacleoflovetowhichpeopleaspire,whatresultsisinternalizingthehistorical split that defined the spiritual as selfless and denigratedfulfillingbothcarnalandself-enhancingworldlyneeds.Inpracticewhatthismeansislove,likespirituality,becomestiedtosacrifice,particularlyself-sacrifice. The ramifications of this are gargantuan, for this pitspeople against their animal nature. It is another way ofcompartmentalizingthepsycheintoapurepartthatatleasttriestogivewithoutexpectations, in thenameof love,while labeling thepart thatwantssomereciprocityimpure.Thisfostersmasochismandmartyrdom,resulting in such diverse phenomena aswomen taking abuse andmensacrificing themselves for this or that ideal, no matter what theconsequences.5Conditional and unconditional are themselves abstract categories

within a dualistic framework constructed by thought.When these twoconceptsareplacedinoppositiontheydisplaythisconundrum:towanttogiveor receiveunconditional love is toplacea conditionon love—namely, that it have no conditions. This is not just a play on words.Abstractions by their nature leave out the living context, and whendealingwithemotions,thisisparticularlytreacherous.Iftheabstractionomitsordenigratesimportantaspectsofthelivingsituation,strangeandoften harmful consequences and distortions result. To adequatelycapture the confusion within the ideal of unconditional love and theconflictsthisidealcauses,itisnecessarytogointotherelationbetweentimeandthetimeless.

Love,Time,andTimelessness

Wewillleaveasidethemetaphysicsoftime,whichinvolvessuchissuesaswhether time is anobjectivepropertyof theuniverse;whether it istied into the subjectiveway thehumanmind experiences theuniverse(as Kant thought); or whether it makes any sense even to try todistinguishthosetwoconceptionsfromeachother.Whatisimportantisthat people do experience both being in time and being timeless, andthatthesetwomodesfeeldifferent.Wheneveroneistotallyabsorbedinanything, or when thought stills, the feeling of the flow of timedisappears,foroneissimplyinvolvedinthepresent.Feelinglovecanbeabsorbing,thustimeless.Experiencing oneself as part of the flow of time (“being in time”)

involves the mind being aware at some level of the past and future.Goals, agendas, desires, fears, expectations, and ambitions involveutilizingmemorytoprojectintothefuture,givingasenseofcontinuity,thus time.All these attempt to create conditions in the future. In fact,conditions can only be placed on the future, not the present. Thepresent, similarly to love, just iswhat it is. Anything onemightwantanothertodoornotdohastobeinthefuture,bydefinition.Thustheveryactofplacingconditionsputsoneintime.Onecanwantsomethingnow; but although the wanting occurs in the present, it can only berealizedornot in the future.This includeswantingastateone is in tocontinue.Of course allmoments, includingprojections into thepastor future,

occuronly in thepresent. It takes awareness of thepast and future togive a sense of continuity and thus time in a given moment. Anexperience is called timeless to distinguish it from instanceswhenonemore feels the flow of time. The word “timeless” only has meaningbecause it stands out as different in a context of experiencing time’sflow.Theinnerpsychologicalstateofexperiencingtheflowoftimeandtheexperienceofbeing timelesseachneedtheother forcontrast tobeperceived at all. The concept of timelessness itself can only arise bycomparingthememoryofatimelessmomenttoothermoretime-bound

ones. It takesabeingwhocanremember,project,and thinkabout thepastandfuturetorecognizeadifferentstatethatfeelsoutoftime.Thispairofseemingopposites,timeandtimelessness,areactuallyembeddedineachotherandthushavewhatwecalladialecticalrelationship.6Idealsofunconditional lovesacralizeonly the timelessbydescribingloveasnotfluctuatingwithtime.Examplesofsuchidealsarethattrueloveasksfornothinginreturn;itdoesn’ttrytochangetheotherperson;andeventhatitlastsforever.Interestingly,theseconceptswhichappearto be beyond the encroachments of time all have a referent to time:“forever” refers toallof time;nochangeor fluctuationcanonlyoccurthrough time; asking for nothing or not trying to change the otherimplies continuity within a way of being over time. All these arereactions against time that involve time by projecting an endlesscontinuityintothefuture.Even though the experience of love can feel timeless, withoutconditions,whatisoftenignoredisthattheexperiencealwaysoccursina given context. The context is very much in time and containsconditions.Peopledonotexperienceatimelessmomentinabubble,butcometo itwithapastandwithhopesandexpectations for the future.Wanting the feeling of love to continue, fearing its loss, or beingdisappointedby a lackof reciprocity all inoculate time into a timelessmoment, thus changing it. Though love feels timeless, saying “I loveyou” usuallymeansmore or is taken tomeanmore than “I’m feelingtheseemotionsnow,andthat’sit.”“Iloveyou”suggestssomecontinuityin time, and implies at least some ongoing context that allows thefeelingsoflovetorootandflower.We wish to make it clear that although love in the moment feelsunconditional, this only occurs in a setting that both has and needsconditionsforitscontinuance.Sotimelessloveisembeddedinacontextof time.Though theactual feelingsdooccur in thepresent, they filterintoandarereflectedinthetemporalcontextofone’slifeinsuchawaythat love isnotmerelyamomentaryoccurrence.This iswhysaying“Iloveyou”hasfutureimplications.Themagicofloveisthatitcanoccurunpredictably;andwhenitdoes,itopensupapathorvalenceforitsspecialchemistrytoreoccur.Oncelovecomes,unlessoneishighlydefendedandfearful,itismostusualtowant to stay open to it.Of course, if onehas beenbadlyhurt, feeling

loveagaincanbefrighteningenoughtocausewithdrawal.Therealissueand difficulty in human relations ismaintaining a context that allowslovetokeepregenerating.Sincemanycontextsdojusttheopposite,itiscommontotrytocageandpossesslovewithcontractsoutoffear,inthehope that this willmake it stay. The problem is that for a context toallowregenerationitcannotbestatic,butitselfmustbechanging,asarethepeople involved.What ischanging through timeare theconditionsthatkeepthevalenceforloveopen.

Self-Sacrifice,Power,andPassion

Whenselflessnessismadetheessenceofvirtue,andbeingself-centeredisconsideredifnotout-and-outbad,certainlylessthangood,thiscausesgreat confusion around matters of the heart. Do I love you becauseyou’reyou?OrdoIloveyoubecauseyouignitepowerfulfeelingsinme?Is it my deep feelings that count, or is it you? Is one “in love withlove”—with one’s own feelings of being in love—or with the otherperson?WhatamItodoifbecauseofconflict,anger,disappointment,orjustlackofnewnessthesefeelingserodeandsomeoneelseappearswhoreignites them? Do I sacrifice these new feelings for your sake in thename of love, or do I followwherever the intensity of passion leads?Resolvingthisdifficultquandaryisnothelpedbyframingloveasselflessgiving,andpassionas carnaland selfish.This turns loving intoadutybecauseofpromises,ideals,oranunderstandablereluctancetohurttheother person. This further erodes love by not taking into account thecontext,whichhas changed to theextent that theoldmagic isdulled.Reignitingawaninglovedoesnotcomefromdutyorself-sacrifice,butfrom changing the context that no longer provides the necessaryambiance.Manyofuswhenwewereyoung fell in lovewithsomeonedazzling

and out of reach, perhaps an older classmate or a movie star. Andalthoughtheemotionswerebothexcruciatingandexquisite,thecontextcould not sustain these feelings because it did not contain certainconditionsnecessarytodoso.Mainly the flowofemotionwas just tooone-way.Tosaythatthisisnotreallovebutmerelyaninfatuationistoplaceanarbitraryjudgmentondeepfeelings.Suchfeelingsusuallyoccurin a particular context, adolescence, that ideally one outgrows. If truelove should truly ask for no return, then keeping such unrequitedemotionsgoingwouldbelaudableandhealthy,whichitisnot.Thislovecouldnotsustain itselfbecause it is totallyunbalanced—as is the idealthattrueloveasksfornoreturn.Getting into a calculus of who’s giving and who’s getting seems an

anathematolove.Yetequatinglovewithonlygivingbecomesacovert

authoritarianprescriptiononhowtobe,andisanartificialconstructionof amorality that depends on a selfless/self-centered dichotomy. Lovedoes not fit into this dichotomy, and to try tomake it do so disablespeoplefromintelligentlygivingorreceivinginformation.“You’rebeingselfish”;“Youdon’tlovemeanymore”;“You’retryingtocontrolme”arecommonlyusedwhenidealsarenotbeingmet.Theseareallsignsthatsomething is missing or has eroded in the context that needsexamination. Idealsofunconditional lovenotonlydonothelpthisbutcan further divide people from each other, and also divide theminternallyastheystrugglewiththeirselfishandselflessparts.Whenloveispresent there isno struggle,asgivingandgettingarenot separable.Whenpeopleseparatethemitisasignofimbalance.Internalizing the concept of unconditional love is damaging to thecreationofacontext inwhichlovecanthrive. It isyetanotherwayoftaking on an unlivable ideal that eithermakes people feel inadequateinsofar as they are not living up to it, or unconscious insofar as theythinktheyare.Italsosetsupanillusoryidealofpuritywhoseverbiageisdeeply interwovenwithintheframeworkofauthoritariancontrol.Ofcourse, through loving one may give unconditionally at any moment.This isnotat issue,nor is itwhattheideal isreallyabout.Rather, theidealofunconditionalloveentailsbeingunconditionalallthetime.Suchideals not only create dysfunctional relationships but lead tounconscious expressions of power and control that are detrimental tolove. Control itself is not necessarily damaging and may even beenhancing,ifthoseinvolvedareexercisingitconsciouslyandwithcare.Lovehasanenergythatbreaksopentheboundariesoftheself,andindoing so is a connector that brings joy and meaning beyond self-enhancement.Theexperienceoflovecanfeelselfless,andwheninlovepeopleoftendoputtheother’sconcernsfirst.Becausethisdoesoccurinlove,itiseasytoassumethatonecanrecreateloveorshowitbyputtingtheotherfirst.Thisishowtheidealofself-sacrificegetstiedtolove.Imagesofthisaboundinreligion,whichsetsthetone.InChristianityGodshowsloveforhiscreationbysacrificingthatwhichmeansmosttohim (his son) in order to save a tainted humanity (tainted with self-centeredness). The image of Christ on the cross equates love withsuffering, and suffering with atonement. Christ, as the only pure(meaning not self-centered) temporal being, gives his life and love

totallyandunconditionallytosaveothers.Monotheismitself,withrareexception (deism), makes selflessness and subservience the supremevirtues.IfoneisthecreationofawillfulGod,thenwhatotherpurposecan there be than serving his divine will? To counter God’s dictateswould not only be “bad,” but foolish. Christ as the dutiful son of anauthoritarian father is the perfect model of willing self-sacrifice andsubmissionto“higher”purposes.TheEasternconceptsofenlightenmentandcosmicunitylikewisehaveintrinsicimplicationsthatidealizeselflessness:Heretheimageisoftheperfectmasterorenlightenedonewhohasmergedwiththegodheadbygoing beyond the illusion of separateness to the extent of no longeridentifyingwithoneselfasaseparateentity.Hencethereisnoego,andallactivities that spring fromsuchabeingaresolely for thebenefitofothers. “Enlightened masters” are presented as loving all of humanityunconditionally, having incarnated (returned in human form to thewheel of rebirth) for the sole purpose of leading others towardhigherstates.7Itisonethingtoputasideself-interestasanaturalexpressionofcarewithin a living context; it is quite another to be expected to do so asproof of love. This expectation can be from others or oneself. Theconcept of pure love automatically becomes institutionalized, as suchexpectations bring roles, duties, and rules that structure and controlbehavior.Christ’sloveissupposedlypureandunconditional;yetunlessoneobeysChristianity’s rulesoneendsup inhellorpurgatory,or inamore sophisticated version of divine retribution, one is denied God’spresence. The guru claims to love unconditionally; but unless onesurrenders to him totally (meaning obeys his rules) he loses interest.Parents are supposed to demonstrate love for their children bysacrificingforthem;inreturn,childrenaresupposedtoobey.Thewife’straditionalroleinthefamilyhasbeentosacrificeherindividuationforhusbandandchildreninthenameoflove.We do not question the necessity ofmothers, society, or the humanspecies as awhole givingpriority to thewell-being of children,whichincludes loving them.All societiespay lip service to the importanceofchildren but still expect parents, especially women, to do what isnecessary.Onereasonourspeciesisatriskisthatchildren’swell-beingislefttoisolatedfamiliesingeneral,andmothersinparticular,whoare

no longer equipped to dowhat is needed on their own. In this regardsocietyissimilartoanabsenteeparent.Theoldsocialandmoralordersare built on women placing children and men first. No matter howmodern one is, it is difficult not to have either deeply rootedexpectationsorreactionscomingfromthesefoundationsandvalues.Theways values are constructed in a society and internalized by its

members are an integral part of both social and intimate control. Notonlydoessocietyjustifycontrolthroughitsvalues,italsousesthemtoallocate resources and determine priorities that then control thedirection society goes. If a prime value is being the strongestmilitarypower, this trickles down very tangibly to control the lives of thoseunder that prescription. Also, and not incidentally, values are whatpeopleusetocontrolthemselves.8We are not questioning the value of values. There must be shared

values, at some level at least, in order for people to cooperate at all.Rather,weare elucidatinghowvaluingpurity comes fromapolarizedmoral order that uses amisleading concept of purity as a standard ofmeasuringworth.Themoreabsoluteastandard,theeasieritistouseasa measuring rod. This is why gold, whose purity can be measuredrelatively easily, became the standard for measuring material wealth.Investing the concepts of both love and virtue with purity sets anidenticalstandardofselflessnessforeachthatisusedtoestablishworthalongalinear,hierarchicalscaleofvalue—thatis,themoreselflessoneis,thebetter.9Pureandimpureareconceptsembeddedineachother.Likesomany

otheroppositions, theyhavemeaningonly in relation toeachother.Amoralorderthatvaluespurityoverimpuritysetsupahierarchyofvaluewhereby what is considered not totally pure is measured against astandardofpurity.Thus inthedesignated impuresector, thepurer thebetter.Soifpurelovesetsnoconditions,thenthelessconditionsimpurelovesets,thebetter.Andalso,ifpurevirtueisdefinedasselflessintentions,thenthemore

selfless one’s intentions are, themorevirtuousone is. That iswhy theconceptofunconditionalloveasbeyondmeasureisactuallyameasuringdevice.Ifpureloveislinkedwithsacrifice,thenthepurityofone’slovecan be measured by how much one sacrifices. Ideals of purity arenecessarily only linked with individuals, which leads to an atomistic

view of relationships. This notion cannot incorporate the idea thatrelationships are systems that affect the nature of individual control.Insteadsuchidealspresupposepeoplecouldbe(andshouldbe)totallyincontrolofhowgivingor sacrificing theyare,as if therelationshiphadno effect on this. The logical extension of this framework wouldconclude the worse a relationship is, the more one can prove one’spurityandlovethroughsacrifice.Nothing occurs purely as if in a vacuum, outside any context.Authoritarianhierarchiesofpowerhavebeenapervadingcontexteversincehumanitymovedintoitsearlyaccumulationphase.Love,too,asanaturalhumanexpressiononlyoccurswithinacontext.10Perhapsoneofthemostuncomfortableareastoexaminewithhonestyandclarityistherelationshipbetweenloveandpower.WouldonesurrendertoandloveGod,aleader,orguruiftheywerenotperceivedaspowerful?11Theidealofunconditionalloveplacesloveinarealmbeyondpower,whichisthoughttotarnishthepurityoflove.Whatthisactuallydoesispromote a double standard for morality. The concept of selfless lovereinforces a double standard by compartmentalizing not only a socialorder, but the psyches of those within it. There are supposedly twospheres: that of love, which telescopes into spirituality, and that ofpower,whichissoobviouslycorrupting.Thearenaswhereselflessvirtuecan at least be attempted are mother-love, romantic love, spiritualquestings, humanitarian causes. And then there are the areas ofcompetitionandpowerwhere“dirtyingone’shands” is expected.Thusthepriest,holyman,ormotherisexpectedtobepureormorepurethanthe soldier, politician, businessman, or actress. A double standard ofmoralitymeansthattherulesof thegamearedifferentforeacharena.Theformeraresupposedtodevotetheirlivestobeingamodelforothersthroughserving,whilethelatterdevotetheirlivestoachieving—whichmore often involves sacrificing scruples than self-interest. Historically,thesplitbetweenthepureandimpurealsodisplayeditselfalonggenderlineswherebywomenwere expected to be sexually andmorallymorepure (meaning chaste and giving), and men were allowed far moreleeway.Wantingtokeepthesetwospheresseparateisanattempttokeeploveincorruptible,thuspure.Thiscannotreallybedone,however,forloveisnotonlyexpressedincontextsofpower,butisitself,potentiallyatleast,

amanifestation of power. Popularmaxims that refer to “the power oflove”orclaim“Lovecanmovemountains”attesttothis.Whereloveandpowerinterfaceiswherethedifficultiesarise.Attemptingtopurifylovebyeliminatingpowerdoesnotdoso,butinsteadmakesthewaypowerisexpressedlessconsciousandmorecovertlymanipulative.Therecanbegreatpassioninsurrenderingtoanother.Inauthoritarian

hierarchiessurrenderisstructuredinthroughsubmission.InhierarchicalreligionssubmissionistoGodortheguru;intraditionalpatriarchiesitisto the ruler and tomales.Dominance and submission create a contextfor emotional surrender. We call this “authoritarian surrender,” as itinvolves submission without resistance through internalizingauthoritarian values. Like surrender in other contexts, it opensboundariesthatcanallowfeelingsof love.Aslongasoneiscontenttoaccept the submissive role, the good feelings can be sustained. Onereasonpeopledoremainsubmissiveinsuchastructureisthatitiseasyto become attached to the emotions generated by it. Here throughsurrendertoroles,whatfeelslikeunconditionalloveisreallyafunctionof a context that is conditionalon submission. LovingGod is alwaysasurebettogeneratepassionbecausesubmissionisbuiltin.Mother-love,theworld’sparagonofunconditionallove,demonstrates

theconnectionbetweenloveandpowerbothonapersonalandculturallevel.Themostusualcontextwhereunconditionalloveisexperiencedisbetween mother and child, particularly between mothers and youngchildren. It can, of course, occur between fathers and children, too.However, it seems that men have an easier time maintaining theirboundaries, especially with infants. Since women bear and nurturechildrenwiththeirbodies,itmakesevolutionarysenseforthemtohavesome genetic hard-wiring that makes it more difficult to maintainboundaries with their children. One only has to observe the differenteffect a crying baby has on a man and woman.Whether or not suchgender differences are genetic, the archetype ofmother-love is that ofacceptance and giving that starts with the breast and is sustained nomatter what. The popular cliché “Only a mother could love him”expressestheexpectationsplacedonthesteadfastnessofmother-love.In many cultures where sex roles are sharply divided and male

dominance a given, motherhood is held sacrosanct. These kinds ofstatements are inherent in such cultures: “My mother is a saint”—

meaning she sacrifices an inordinate amount for others. And from amothertoson,“NoonewillloveyouasIdo”—meaningnoonewillputhim first the way she does. Placing mothers and motherhood on apedestal can be so extreme that insults to either have been known tohave mortal consequences. In such cultures not only is the primaryemotional bond usually betweenmother and son rather than husbandand wife, but a woman’s power comes through her sons. The womanwithoutsonsispitied.Women, like men, are interested in protecting their survival, well-

being, and position in a social order that impacts the quality of theirlives.Whenwomen are denied direct access to power they have littlealternative but to utilize men to gain security. Since their basic well-being is physically dependent onmen, the traditional route of femalepoweristohavemenemotionallydependentonthem.Theidealthatawoman should be self-sacrificing controls her, and through it shecontrols(ortriesto)thoseshesacrificesto.Thisisthestuffofguiltandresentmentforallconcerned.Theunacknowledged,opaqueintertwiningof control and self-sacrifice has propelled people into endless hours oftherapyandfillscountlesspagesinnovelsandpsychologybooks.Rigidsexrolesdevelopdifferentspheresofpowerbetweenthesexes,

where each considers the other naive, even childish. As theirdevelopment in theother’s sphere is stunted, there is some truth to it.Womenoftensay,“Menarereallylittleboys,”meaningtheiremotionaldevelopment is arrested and they are self-absorbed.Men say, “Womenare like children, they need protection,” meaning they are weak andcould not survive or even understand the harsh realities of theworld.Traditionally both men and women had a vested interest in keepingseparate,complementaryrealmsofpower,asitgavesecurityandshapetotheirlives.Thiskepteachsexchildishintheother’srealmbyhavingthem continue as adults to act out the roles ofmother and father foreach other. Traditionally women relied on men for economic supportand physical protection; men relied on women for emotional supportandphysicalmaintenance.Whendeniedpowerinonesphere,attemptingtogetitinanotherthat

isculturallyacceptable is inevitable.This iswhywomen’spowercamefromemotionalandsexualmanipulation.Although inmodernsocietiessex roles are blurring, the traditional spheres of power are not as

removed from modern life as it might seem. Many modern womencomplain that what men really want in a wife is a mother—someonewhoputsthemfirstandbuildsherlifearoundthem.Totheextentthatawoman makes sacrificing herself for her children her prime identity(especiallyastheygetolder),sheisteachingthemthatloveissacrifice.This usually translates differently to male and female children. Malescometoexpectbeingputfirstbyawomanandassociatethatwithbeingloved; females learn that’s the way to get and keep a man and oftenequate others’ need and dependency with being loved. Also, motherscome to expect their daughters to embody and display love for themthrough sacrifice, which is why the mother/daughter relationshipusuallycomeswiththemostpainful,convolutedbaggage.Many contemporary families have a usually unconscious collusionaround power and authority that has the ideal of unconditional lovewoventhroughit.Nowthattheauthoritarianfatherisoutoffashion,thecovertly authoritarian mother often fills the power vacuum. Motherstypicallyequatetheirwillingnessalwaystoputtheirchildrenfirstwiththeideathattheyknowwhat’sbestforthem.Thisculturallysupportedbelief can be used to control the entire family: “It’s time to go home,dear—thechildrenhavetogotobed.”Manyfathershappilycolludewiththisbecausetheycannotordonotwant tocompetewith theamountofgivingmother-love iscustomarilythought to involve. So they usually abdicate bottom-line responsibilityfor theday-to-daywell-beingof thechild.Thiscreatesaviciouscircle,forwhenmen leave the field they do becomemore out of touchwiththeirchildren,thusreinforcingthewoman’sconvictionshedoesindeed“knowbest.”Howoftendoesoneseeafathereagerlyhandoveracryingbaby, saying a little sheepishly, “There’s nothing like a mother.” Thewoman’s contentedand sometimes condescending lookcomesnotonlyfromherbeliefthatshealonecanquietthechild,butalsobecausethisisher source of emotional fulfillment and power. Fathers could quiet achild,too,iftheycaredtofigureouthow.Whenfathersdodirectlycare forchildren,mothers typically think itshouldbedonebytheirstandards,whichthemengenerallyfallshortof.Societypromotesthevaluethatgoodmothersalwaysputtheirchildrenfirst. Men concur, but rarely wish to meet such high standards ofsacrifice themselves. They thus collude with mothers being child-

centered,andseekavenuesofpowerandamusementoutsidethefamilywhilethewomanbecomesthefamily’semotionalbedrock.Mother-love,inbecomingconnectedwithserviceandsacrifice,oftenalsobecomesthebasisofunconsciousauthoritariancontrol.Manymeninitiallymakepromisestosharetheresponsibilityequallywithout really knowing what’s involved. Women often feel betrayedwhenthemenfailtodoso.Theyresentbeingmoreresponsibleforthechildren, especially if they have another job. Yet they are generallyunconsciously attached to being their children’s primary emotionalcenterandauthorityonwhat’sbestforthem,andtotheoverallpowerinthe family this brings. They want more help, but on their terms,retaining the centrality of authority. Since this essentially makes themother the father’s boss around childrearing, he predictably resistsinvolvement,whichbringsmoreresentmentfromthewoman.This not unusual scenario has deep ramifications in the nooks andcranniesofcontrolwithinafamily,includingdamagingacouple’seroticlife. An alternative to what we call “child-centeredness” (making thechild’sneedsprimary)istorealizethebestandmostsecurethingforachildlongtermisfortheparentstobefulfilledasindividualsandhappywitheachother.Thiswouldinvolveadifferentcontextofresponsibilityand power aimed at balancing the needs of all concerned. It alsoinvolves making the couple’s intimacy and sexual connection apriority.12

ControlandBoundaries

Modern reactions against familial control have utilized the concept ofunconditional love inanattempt todoawaywith control in intimacy.Theinstitutionofmarriagecontrolledbehaviorthroughroles, idealisticvows,thecontractualnatureoftheinstitution,andgreatsocialpressureto live up to the contract. The phrase “bonds ofmatrimony” indicatesthatpeopleexpectedtobecontrolled.Nowmanymodernpeoplehaveadifferent attitude toward relationships and marriage in that they aregun-shyofcontrolandtakethisstand:“Peopleshouldn’t try tocontroleach other, especially if they love each other. To love someone is toacceptthemastheyare.”Wantingtobelovedforwhooneisandtolovethatwayinreturnisunderstandable,andisanotherofthegreatappealsoftheideaofunconditionallove.Completeacceptance,eithergivenorreceived,whenoccurringcreates

an emotional bath, thewaters ofwhich are compellingly comfortable.Butwantingorexpectingtotalacceptancetobetotallythereallthetimeistoputfuturesonanexperiencethatonlyoccursinthelivingpresent.If one was fortunate, infancy had many such moments; but even ininfancy, parents begin early to shape children to fit their needs andvalues.Parentsvacillatebetweengivingacceptanceandgivingmessagesof their prerogatives to control. As the child ages, acceptance andobedience become more and more interwoven; the child learns thatobediencecreatesacontextforacceptance.Freeingoneself fromparental authorityand judgments ispartof the

process of growing up. Thoughwanting acceptancewithout control isunderstandableinanadolescent,shouldthedesirenevertobecontrolledpersistinadulthood,thisensuresthecontinuationofadolescence.Thisisbecause intimacy in adult relationships contains both the exercise ofpowerandthedesireatleastsometimestocontroltheother.Roles,whenaccepted,minimizeconflictbyprescribingbehaviorand

designating spheres of power.But in any long-term relationshipwhereroles are fluid andpeoplevaluenotbeing role-bound,power strugglesaroundvalues,whattodo,andwhogetstheirwayareinevitable.Since

intimacynecessarilygiveseachpersonsomepowertocontroltheother,toavoiddealingwiththerealitiesofcontrolistoavoidgrowingup.Thisisahistoricallynewchallengethatevolvedasdemocraticandanti-sexistvaluesinfiltratedprivatelife.Intimacy builds through time as one learns to trust that one’smoreopen boundaries will not be abused too casually. Intimacy can be acontext for acceptance but does not guarantee it in every instance.Ironically,thehigherone’sideals,inpracticethelessonemayaccepttheothernotmeetingthem.Absolutevalues,suchas“alwaysbeingthereforeachother,” bringhurt, disappointment, or resentment, andultimatelymoreclosure.Theidealofunconditionallovealsocreatesmoreclosure.Itproclaimsthatboundariesshouldremainopennomatterwhattheotherdoes,andthat any accommodations made must be done within oneself withouttryingtocontroltheother.Thealternativeisthinkingonecanstillloveunconditionally with closed boundaries. For instance, people haveclaimedtolovesomeoneunconditionally,eventhoughtheydonotwanttoseethepersonagain.Whatcanthismean?Onethingitdoesmeanisthat they are more involved with their own image of themselves aslovingthantheyarewiththeotherperson.Themistakeisinlookingatbothloveandcontrolaslocatedonlyintheindividual,insteadofseeingthat intimacy creates an interdependent relational system that is nottotallyinthecontrolofeitherindividual.The ideal of not placing conditions on love can lead people tomistakenlybelievepowerandcontrolneednotbefactorsinrelationship.It is common to value openness and intimacy, and also to be anti-control. This idea that one can be open and yet at the same time notsubjecttobeingcontrolledorcontrollingisamentalframeworkthatisessentially illusory and self-protective. People have a natural desire tomaintain some control over how they feel and the direction of theirlives.Tobeopentoaperson,theworld,whatever,istobeaffectedbyit,which means one’s feelings are somewhat out of one’s control. To beopen to one’s children is to hurt when they do and to experience joywhen they do. So to the degree one’s boundaries are open, one isaffectedbyand thus toanextent controlledbywhat comes in.To theextent one is controlled by external factors one also wants to controlhow, and how much, this occurs. It is mainly because the lungs’

boundariesarepermeabletopollutants,whichaffectshealth,thatpeoplewanttocontrolpollution.Given that being emotionally open to someone gives that personpower toaffecthowone feels,onehasanautomaticvested interest inwhatthepersondoes.Atthemostobviouslevel,onewouldpreferothersto act in a way that brings good feelings rather than bad. So to theextent that others can influence one’s emotional state, there is aninevitablewanttoinfluenceandcontrolhowtheydoso.Attemptingtocurbtheeffectofothersononeselfisdoneconsciouslyorunconsciously,overtlyorcovertly,byeithercontrollingthemordetachingfromthem.One powerful and usually unconscious way control operates inrelationshipsisthroughtheopeningandclosingofboundaries.13Withinintimacy,thisisnottotally—oftennotevenlargely—inone’simmediatecontrol. It is possible consciously towant to close to someonewho isabusive,yetbeunabletodoso.Orifhurtenough,one’sboundariesmaycloseeventhoughonedoesnotwantthemto.Theothermayexperiencethis closure as punishment and feel controlled—that is, feel pushed tochange.Thiseasilybringsresentment,outofwhichonecaneithertrytomaketheotherpersonwrongforclosing,orbecomemoreclosedoneself.Controlling emotions that one does not like to feel is possible to anextent. To do this one can resort to detachment, repression, denial,affirmations, or withdrawal. Emotions are not ultimately controllable,however, in that one cannot close selectively andonly eliminate thosethat feel bad. The accumulation of resentments from either feelingcontrolledbytheotherorfromcontrollingone’sownso-callednegativeemotions (by repressing or holding them in) is one of the big reasonsrelationshipsthatstartwithpeoplelovingeachotherfail.The way control is exercised is often unconscious for two mainreasons:On theonehand, control ishiddenbehind“rights” that comewithrolessuchasparent,spouse,orteacher.Ontheotherhand,peoplecanthinktheydonothavetherighttotrytocontrolanotherbecauseofideologies thatmake it wrong to do so.With roles, control ismaskedunderrights; thosewhoareanti-controlcanusuallybeobliqueenoughin the way they exercise control to convince themselves they are notdoing so—or else justify it by thinking it’s being done for the other’sgood.What is little realizedby thosewhoopposecontrol is thatwhenonepersonsaystoanother,“StoptryingtocontrolmeorI’llwithdraw

fromyou,”thisutteranceislikewiseanattemptatcontrol.Likeitornot,controlisaninherentpartofintimacy.Control in the family is legend. Interestingly, the blood family

generallyhas thehighest idealsaroundopenness, loyalty, support,andunconditional acceptance. As such, it offers an excellent illustration ofwhat happenswhen these ideals are institutionalized by turning themintorights,duties,andexpectations.Tomany,bloodrelationshipmeans,bottomline,“beingthereforeachothernomatterwhat, throughthickand thin.”What thisamounts to isa tabooagainst closingboundaries.This can result in the familybecoming the emotionaldumpinggroundbecause members are expected to stay open. Consequently, familymembers are often more inconsiderate, judgmental, demanding, andemotionally abusive with each other than with outsiders who wouldclosetheirboundariesifsotreated.Alongwiththisthereisavaluethatsaysnotto“keepitinthefamily”isabetrayal.Here, in private, behind closed doors, the repressed side of the

selfless/selfish dichotomy that doesn’t look good in public comes out.This iswhy,contrary to the ideals, familiesareoftenpitsofpain. It isalsowhy,shouldoneclosetoafamilymember,itmostusuallycontainssuch bitterness that re-opening is very difficult. Although makingboundaries taboo offers emotional security, it has a dark sidewhereinthefamilyisoneofthegreatestsourcesofhatredandviolence,aswellas the overall breeding ground of emotional dysfunction. Not only istaking openness for granted a bane to real care, the taboo againstboundariesallowspeopletobothgiveandtakefarmoreabusethaninany other context. The family is also the place where people feel themost emotionally out of control. This is partly due to the buildup ofresentmentsandtheeasewithwhichfamilymemberspusheachothers’emotional triggers. In our framework, the family becomes the placewhere the usually repressed, unacceptable parts of oneself come outbecauseothermembersareexpectedtotakeit.14Controlisathemewithmyriadvariations,fromtheblatant“Doitor

I’llkillyou” to theveiled“Not tonightdear, Ihaveaheadache.”Also,attitudes toward control differ from abhorring it to associating itwithcare.Controloperatesonsomany levelsaspeople try toarrange theirlives to getmore of what theywant (or think theywant) and less ofwhattheydonot.AndifoneadoptstheideacomingfromsomeEastern

religions that it would be better not to have desires at all, then onebecomes busy trying to control the fact that one does. This brings aninternal struggle for controlbetweenone’sdesiresand the idealofnotwantingthem.15Just as trying to control and manipulate the environment for one’sownneedsandpurposesisaninnatehumantrait,attemptingtocontrolothers is also part of being human. This occurs whether for self-protectionor togetone’sway, for less-than-benignpurposes,oroutofthepresumption thatoneactuallyknowswhat isbest. Since control isinevitable between people, especially in intimacy, the question thenbecomes, what to do with it? As is the case in all areas that involvestrongemotions,therearenoformulasapplicabletoeachcontextwherecontrol occurs. This is compounded by the two stances people usuallyhave:Oneeither thinksonehasaright tocontrol,orarightnot tobecontrolled,andoftenfeelseachwayindifferentsituations.Rightsaside,control is obviously and often misused, which has given it a badreputation.But fortunately,sincecontrol isan inevitablecomponentofhuman interaction, it has positive aspects if used appropriately.Exercisingcontrol isonewaypeoplecanmoveeachother,openingupotherwiseunimaginedvistas.Ifcontrolisapproachedwithawarenessitcanbeasourceofnewnessandcreativity.Doingwhattheotherwantsleadstonewexperiencesthatcanbetransformativeforoneselfandtherelationship, as well as making the other person feel cared for. Whatkeeps an ongoing relationship turned-on and vital over time is thewillingness of those involved to be transformed by each other.Transformationcomesfromtheinterplayofcontrolandsurrender.Controlatwhatever level involves settingconditions.Theconceptofunconditional lovemeans never placing conditions on howopen one’sboundariesare.Thisisreallyanotherunlivableidealbecausenoonehasabsolutecontroloverhowopenoneisatanymoment,andalsobecausethe future is essentiallyuncertain.This ideal becomes an authoritarianprescription on how to be that removes one from the living momentwherelovecanflower.Suchformulasareadisguisedattempttocontrolloveandlifeitself.Theveryconstructionoftheconceptofunconditionalloveasselflesssetsitinoppositiontosomeotherkindoflovethathasconditions.Yetit,too,placeshiddenconditionsonlove—thatithavenoconditionsand

be selfless. Peopleneed love to feel fulfilled, and that need, like otherneeds, is self-centered. That love only comes when one cares aboutsomethingotherthanoneself,andthatcaringforothersisself-fulfilling,are both also true. Love cannot be made to fit intounconditional/conditionalorselfless/self-centeredframeworks.Doingsoresultsindividingtheselfintothegoodpartthattriestoloveselflesslyby asking for nothing in return and the selfish part, which can neverquitebeeliminated,thatwantssomethingback.

“LoveAddiction”

Twoaddictions(intheloosewaythewordiscurrentlybeingused)areworth examining here because they illustrate the connection betweenlove and control. The first is sometimes referred to as love addiction,meaningbeingaddicted to “loving” someonewho isnotgood foryou.Religious addiction is another recent addition to the ever-expandingroster of addictions. This alludes to being addicted to certain kinds ofemotionalexperiences thatarepartof religiouscontexts.Wedealwiththesetwotogetherbecausetheyshareasimilardynamic.Actually,ifonewanted to classify either under the rubric of addiction, it would besimpler andmore correct to call them both an addiction to emotionalsurrender.16Control and surrender, taking charge and letting go, willing and

accepting—these two stances interweave in all of human existence.Janus-like, these two faces of interaction are at the gate of howexperience is dealt with. Although seemingly opposite, they have aninterdependentrelationtoeachother.17Whencontrolandsurrenderarepolarized, it is not unusual to become addicted or habituated to thepleasures of one side or the other. The pleasures of control arePromethean,havingtodowiththeexerciseofpower.Powercanbeasintoxicatingasanydrug(perhapsevenmoreso);thepowerjunkieisrunbytheongoingneedtoreaffirmcontrol—usuallyoverothers,butoftenoveroneself,too.The pleasures of surrender are more in line with the passions of

abandonment—getting out of oneself through powerful boundaryopenings. Here people can get hooked into wanting the repetition offeelings they call love or religious ecstasy. These feelingsmost alwaysoccurinspecialcontexts.Ausualcontextforgeneratingreligiousecstasyinvolves being part of a like-minded group whose main focus issurrendering to whatever higher power is mutually believed in. Thegroupactsasareinforcerandamplifierofthecovetedemotions.18Thecontextofso-calledloveaddictionalsoinvolvessurrenderingtoa

perceivedhigherpower,butherethepowerresidesinthe“lovedone.”

This depends on an imbalance of power, with passion being arousedthrough the other being dominant. The process of breaking someone’swillcaninducesurrender,andwithitfeelingsofpassion.Althoughthedominant person can feed off the other’s passion to satisfy a need forpower and worship, there can be no real respect for someone sosurrendered.Whensurrenderisone-sided,passionandpowerneedtoberepeatedly and mechanically induced. Giving abuse which the othertakes is a mechanical form of power that can reignite the wantedfeelings.(ThisistheessenceofTheStoryofO,anovelofextremesado-masochism.) Traditionally women were programmed to submit, sosurrenderismoreinlinewiththefemalerole.Freudthoughtwomentobe masochistic because in the Victorian context submission was theirmainroutetopassion.Loveaddictionoccursinacontextofpower;thepassionitgenerates,nomatterhow it feels, is reallyquitemechanical. “Loveaddicts”needsomeonetosurrenderto,andtakingabusecanreinforcetheirimageofbeing in love. This is often coupled with wanting to save the abuser,believing that if one just loved enough, theotherwouldbecomemoreloving,too.Hereoneisreallyaddictedtoaqualityofpassionthatcomesthrough surrendering; submitting to someone dominant is an easy,highlyconditionedroutetothis.Peoplerepeatthisscenarioeitherwiththe sameperson or find themselves attracted to otherswho create thesame context.Of course, the dominant person gets addicted to power,which here is having someone so “in love” with you that you areworshipped no matter what. Tellingly, such imbalanced, addictive,modular relationships look like, and from the inside can feel like,unconditionallove.Thisrevealsalotaboutthenatureoftheidealitself,wherebyone is supposed to love as if in a vacuum, regardless of howtreated.An aware life involves, among other things, balancing control andsurrender,withoutgettingmechanicallydrivenby thepleasuresofoneto theexclusionof theother.Surrenderdoesopenboundariesand isakey to passion. But unless the results are healthy, which from ourperspective means enhancing one’s sense of self-worth and self-trust,tryingtokeepone’sboundariesopeninordertokeepthepassiongoingisself-destructive.Theexperiencingofunconditional loveneedscertainconditions,and

whenthepsycheisdividedintoagoodpartthattriestobeselflessandapartjudgedbadbecauseitisselfish,theconditionsarebothmechanicaland predictable. Through submission the idealized part of oneself canfeel selfless, thus virtuous; and through dominance the other’s self-centered part can affirm its power and adequacy. What we areattemptingtomakeclearisthatfeelingsofpureloveonlyoccurinlivingcontexts,notinavacuum.Thecontextsthemselvesareneverpure,butcontainelementsofpower,control,andmoreoftenthaniscomfortableto acknowledge, dominance and submission. This is especially truebetween the sexes because historical roles are vested with skeweddomainsofpower.Measuringisessentialinbreakingoutofroles,whichmeanschangingthebalanceofpower.

MeasuringandRoles

Thepopularmystiquenotonlyhasunconditionallovealwaysforgiving,but also not measuring. If all is forgiven, why measure? Obviouslymeasuring imposes conditions.Measuringhowmuchone is givingandreceiving can appear antithetical to love. By its nature measurementlookstothepastforcomparison,outofwhichthequalityofthepresentisjudged.Judgingthequalityorquantityofreciprocitydoesdampentheingenuousness of love. When love is fully experienced, encumbrancesincluding measurement are not in play. But does this mean that toexperience love, or to experience itmore, one should as best one canavoidmeasuring?Although lovemay feel simple, thecontext inwhich itoccurs rarely

remains simple for long. Many previously discussed elements such aspower, dominance/submission, conquest, acceptance of roles, theaddictive aspects of either control or surrender—all have repetitive,usuallyunconsciousmechanismsthatsetthestagefortherecurrenceofthefeelingsoflove.Forexample,therolesofmother,husband/wife,anddiscipleallhavestructuredwaystokeepboundariesopen.Herethough,becauseofdependency, it isdifficult ifnot impossible to separate lovefrom need. Should one buy into and emulate a given role or stance,measuringreciprocitycanbekept inthebackground.This isespeciallyso becausemost roles are not structured to be reciprocal in the waysgivingandgettingareplayedout.Inatraditionalmarriage,theroleofhusband is to give security and protection, while the wife’s role is tonurture and put the husband’s needs first. For those who can remaincontentinthisstructure,itispossibleforlovetobeanongoingelementin it. The old glue that held couples together was the acceptance oftraditionalroles,whichwasmadeeasierbyviewingthemasGod-given,and by surrendering to each other in marriage for life through God.When measuring does occur in such situations, it usually involvesmeasuringhowwelltherolesarebeingperformed.For those not able to accept and live through traditional roles and

structures,thequestionbecomeshowtokeeplovealiveinacontinuing

relationship while moving through uncharted waters. It is here thatmeasuring is not only useful but at times essential for keeping thechangingcontextviableforlove.Althoughpeoplemaynotbeabletofitinto traditional roles, thisdoesnotmean the rolesno longerhaveanyholdover them. It isdifficult formarriagenot to igniteoldarchetypalrolesandexpectations;ifchildrencome,thisiscompoundedbytherolesof father and mother. Within this ancient framework, traditionalexpectationsof giving andgetting arehardnot to fall into.To changethepatternsandbringaboutadifferentkindofbalance,measuringisanecessary device. In fact, not to measure just about ensures that oldpatternswillremaininplay.If a relationship is going well, there is no need to measure. Whenmeasuringintrudes,itisbecauseonepersonrightlyorwronglybeginstosuspect an imbalance, and so feels the need for some kind of change.Structurally, the one who questions or criticizes the validity ofmeasuringismorecontentwiththestatusquo.Therecouldbedifferentreasonsforthis,includingfearofchange,beingmoresatisfied,orhavingmore power in the relationship. Measuring is a way to justify thatchange is needed and is an attempt to exercise power. Likewise,belittlingmeasuringandholdingupastandardofunconditionalloveisaway of justifying not changing and is also exercising power.Here onefinds the classic argument where one person says, “If you loved meyou’d change,”with theother replying, “If you lovedmeyou’d acceptmethewayIam.”Anti-controlvaluesdonoteliminatecontrol,theyjustgivemorepowertotheonewhodoesn’twanttochange.Thisespeciallyhappenswhenbothpeoplebuyintoanunconditionalloveframework.Measuringisgenerallyanindicationthatthereisorwillbeastrugglewhere both try to get theirway. It is here thatmost relationships fallapart. The image of two autonomous, self-contained individuals wholoveeachotherunconditionallyanddon’tchangeortrytochangeeachotheristhereductioadabsurdumthattheconceptofunconditionalloveleads to.Rolesareaway tominimizechangeand todefine spheresofpower. If one wants a relationship that is not role-bound, not only ischangeinevitable,butsoiseachpersonchangingtheother.Therefore,arelationship whose context is change must deal with the realities ofpowerthatdifferentwantsandneedsentail.Nottodososimplymeansthewaypowerisutilizedislessconsciousandthusmoredetrimental.

Onceonepersonchangesorevenbeginstowantchange,thecontexthas already changed; so the othermust change to respond to the newcontext.Eventheonewhoisresistingreallyalsowantschange(usuallywithout realizing it)—namely, to changeback to theway thingswere.Structurally, because of habit, it ismore difficult tomove a relationalsystemforwardthanitistodragitback.Itisalwayseasiertorepeattheknownthantodosomethingdifferent.Consequently,theonewhowantsto introduce something new into the relationship has a more difficulttime because it involves pushing, while the other can just resist.Structurally, the person pushing for change usually looks morecontrollingandnegativethantheoneresistingit.Measuring can keep people from falling into old roles and theresentmentsthatcomewiththem.Itisafeedbackmechanismindicatingdiscontent,andisoftenanecessarytoolforkeepingthecontextforlove“clean.”Without it the struggles within a relationship polarize, whichhardens boundaries, greatly decreasing the likelihood of feeling love.Role-dominated relationships are authoritarian, as prescribed rolesdefinewhateachshoulddo.Theroles,whichembodytradition,aretheauthoritiesonhowtobe.Theyarealsostatic,asnochangeiscondonedthat is outside the role. To the extent people value being self-definedrather than role-defined, theymustgrapplewithchange,newness,andthepowerstruggle that inevitablyoccurswhentwosuchpeople fall inlove.When theyopen theirboundariesandexperience love, theymustbe able to grow and evolve in ways that can deal with the other’schangingneeds. Itmustbe legitimate to say, “I’vebeengoingonyourtrackforawhile,andnowweneedtochangethings.”Thisismeasuring.Lovewithoutmeasureormeasuring is apartof theoldmoralorderthat denigrates self-centeredness. The ideal is to love selflessly. Onceself-centerednessisacknowledgedasareality,theissuebecomeshowtodealwithitintelligently.Lovebetweenadultsflowersonlywhenthereissomebalancebetweenself-centerednessandgiving,betweencontrolandsurrender,andifthereisconsciouscareinthewaypowerisexercised.Feedback is thewatchdog that helps it stay thatway, so neither feelstaken advantage of. That is whymeasuring can help create a contextthatallowsfeelinglovewithoutmeasure.Equatinglovewithtotalacceptancecanbeusedtotestpeopletoseejustwhattheywillaccept.Lovecanthenbemeasuredbyhowmuchone

is forgiven. The pay-off is feeling accepted, even at one’s worst. Heregiving unqualified acceptance reinforces abusive or self-destructivebehavior.Testingothers is a commondynamicwithin addictions,withthe so-called co-dependent buying into it and forgiving. It is ourassumptionthatthemoreinternallydividedandatwarwiththemselvespeopleare, themoretheywill lookfor,andneed,externalacceptance.What this means is that they will want others to accept the parts ofthemselves theycannot.Being forgiven forone’s sins is a largepartofChristianmorality;but theunderbellyof this isonemust“sin” toreapthe emotional rewards of forgiveness. To have people love even one’s“bad”sidemeansthatoneisreallyloved.

ForgivingandLettingGo

Loving and forgiving seem inextricably tied together, for how can onetruly love someone and not forgive their transgressions? Within anylong-term relationship,whether in friendship or sexual intimacy, hurtsinevitablycome.Forgivenessisoftenpresentedasnecessaryforkeepinglove or even affection alive. There are moral frameworks that makeforgivingavirtueinandofitself.Thismeansitisalwaysworthdoingifonecan,withacorollarybeingthemorethehurt,themorevirtuethereis in forgiving. Yet endlessly forgiving offense or abuse does not seemveryintelligent,as itrewardstheoffender,ensuringsuchbehaviorwillcontinue.Formanypeopleforgivingisanareaofconfusion,bothintellectually

and emotionally. Should one always forgive—and if not always, thenwhen? And even if one wants to forgive or thinks one should, one’semotions do not always cooperate. There is good reason for confusionbecausetheconceptitselfisconfused.Amajorsourceofconfusionistheblurring between being hurt andwronged, and also between forgivingand letting go. Surely one is notwronged every time one is hurt; andevenifonefeelswronged,theothermightnotagreeandfeeljustifiedinwhatwasdone.Whatcanbethevirtueinforgivinghurtifonewasnotwronged?Forgivenessthatisseenasamoralimperativeispartoftheframework

of unconditional love we have been critical of, and thus contains thesame dilemmas. Obviously unconditional love needs ideals ofunconditional forgiving as the mechanism that allows it to remainunconditional—that is, forgiving allowsone tokeepat least somewhatopen, no matter what. In order to convince oneself one is lovingunconditionally, it isnecessary to try continually to let goof anythingthat stands in the way. When forgiving contains a moral component,there is moral superiority in the act itself that can allow one to feelvirtuous. Yet as long as one is judging the other lacking, how muchlettinggocantherebe?Wherethevirtuein“moralisticforgiving”liesisalsocomplicatedby the fact that it isoftenunclearwhobenefitsmore

fromit,theonedoingtheforgivingortheoneforgiven.Whenlettinggoistheproductofanideologythatelevatesdoingsotoa virtue, it becomesmechanical and often destructive,masking denialandrepressionas thedisparagedresentmentsgounconscious.This isasource of depression (which is often repressed anger), addiction, andmanyphysicalailments.Yetcarryingresentments,hatreds,oreven theaccumulation of hurts in one’s nervous system is consuming baggagethatcanalsodetrimentallyimpactthequalityofone’slife.Theproblem is thatpeopleoftenhavedefensesbecause theymay infact need them. But here too, things are not simple, for defenses, likeother activities, become unconscious habits in that one isn’t aware ofdefendingintheactofdoingit.Unconsciousdefendingbecauseofpasthurts puts out a non-selective shield of protection that can deflect toomuch because the past may no longer be relevant. People andcircumstances do change, and holding on to the past can disable onefrom meeting the present fully. But the idea that it’s best not to bedefended at all really means that one’s boundaries should always beopen,whichisabsurd.The interesting quandaries within forgiving involve what letting goreallymeansandhowitaffectsone’sboundaries.Mustlettinggobe“allornothing,”orcanoneletgoinvaryingdegrees?Whatdoeslettinggoreally involve, and when is it appropriate or inappropriate? Doesforgivingnecessarilymeanreopeningboundaries;orcanoneforgiveandkeep one’s boundaries, somewhat at least, closed?A related and basicissue is how to rebuild trust? Trust does not rebuild by forgiving,reopening,and thenbeinghurtagain. Itonly rebuilds through timeasonefindsthatwhateveropeningsoccurarenotmisused.Theeasywayoflettinggoof(orcontrolling)hurtandangeristohaveboundaries so strong that what the other does no longer matters. Itmight be argued that this is not really forgiving because cutting theotheroffstillinvolvesholdingon.Thiswouldonlybetrue,however,ifforgiving necessarily meant opening boundaries. There are instanceswhereitisactuallyeasiertoletgoofoldhurtsiftheothercannolongerhurt one again, which means one’s boundaries are closed. Here thestancecouldbe,“Wejustdon’tgetalongandthat’sfine.”Onecanletgoofpast feelingsand still consciouslychoose tokeepboundaries closed.Moreover, the more conscious one is of defending (putting up

boundaries),themorechoiceonehasinchanginghowdefendedoneiswithchangingcircumstances.Thepointisthatemotionalboundariesdovaryandarerarelyabsolutelyeitheropenorclosed.There isanappealingsimplicity inhavingone’sboundariesclear-cutandunambiguous;thatiswhymuchofholdingonisnotsomuchtopasthurts, but rather holding on to present boundaries in order to protectagainstfuturehurts.Lettinggoofboundaries(openingthem)isdifferentfrom letting go of hurts and angers.When ideals of forgiveness fail todistinguishbetweenthetwo,whatcanresultisholdingontohurtsoutoffearthatwithoutthemonewilllowerboundariesandbehurtagain.Of course, holding on to hurts generally involves holding on toboundaries, too—but not always. Especially if one is in a dependentposition, as children are, it is possible to accumulatehurts andnot beable to construct boundaries. This is exacerbated whenever there is atabooagainstboundaries,asisoftenthecaseinfamilies.Theappropriatenessofreopeningboundariesdependsonthecontext,sonoformulawillwork.Moreover, lettinggoisaprocessthat isoftennoteventotallyinone’scontrol.Onemaywanttoandnotbeableto,oropenupinspiteoftryingtoself-protect.Alsoashiftinboundariescanoccurwithout conscious effort by reframing one’s view of a situation,increasing understanding, or seeing better the total picture.Understandingandempathyaremorevaluable in softeningboundariesthanidealsofwhatoneshoulddo.Itishelpfultounderstandtheother’spointofviewandsituation,beawareofone’scomplicityifthereisany,andrealizethatnoneofusisimmunefromputtingourselvesfirst—noris it necessarily wrong to do so. Ideals of unconditional love andacceptanceandofforgivingasavirtuedonotaidtheprocessoflettinggo;theymerelycreateunlivablestandardsthatmaskdefensiveness.Peoplehurteachotherinavarietyofwaysinvolving,forexample,notlivinguptoexpectations,usingtheother,orputtingthemselvesfirstinaway that ignores others’ feelings, and at times evenwell-being.Whenhurt,thesolutionformanyistoputupboundariesandkeepthem.Thisiswhysooftentheagingprocessinvolveslosingfriendsandevenlovers.Ifoneisinterestedinkeepingrelationsthroughtime,aprocessisneededthat allows boundaries to open or close with changing circumstances.Boundariesreallyoperateinthepresentandaimatthefuture.Soifoneallowedone’sboundariestofluctuatewithhowoneisbeingtreated,one

would not have to decide beforehand how open or closed to be. Thisinvolves becoming comfortable with ambiguity, which allows morefreedom to change. The difficulty is that living with such ambiguityinvolvesbeingawareofone’schangingboundariesandtheireffects. Incontrast, set boundaries need less attention;when theydo change, thechanges tend to be dramatic. An example is people who are onlycomfortablewithboundarieseithertotallyopenortotallyclosed.Whenhurt, which happens often because they like to be totally open (andexpect this of others), they shutdown in away thatusually closes offfuturepossibilities.Whenforgivinginvolvesdroppingself-protectiveboundariesitcanbe

used to perpetuate a dysfunctional, violent relationship—wife-beatingbeingonegraphicexample.Situationsofhabitualviolenceandhabitualforgivinghavecyclesofopeningandclosing thatallowone to reignitepassion through once more surrendering. Forgiving in this contextreinforcesabuse.Heretoforgivewithoutrequiringtheothertochangeisnot only self-destructive, but ensures a dysfunctional relationship willremainsobycontinuallyrewardingmistreatment.Ahealthypersondoesnotequateforgivingwithhavingnoboundaries,andthusisabletocloseboundaries for self-protection when abused, and keep them closed ifnecessary.19Letting go of reliving past emotions that limit one’s response to the

present is valuable—valuable for one’s own well-being, as well as forothers, who generally appreciate not being defined by the past.However,lettinggooftheemotionsdoesnotmeanthatonealsoletsgoofthememoryofwhyoneclosedone’sboundaries,oroftheboundariesthemselves.Themoreawareoneisofthisdifference,theeasierit istoreally forgive,whichmeansnothaving the emotionsof thepast cloudthepossibilitiesof the future.Thiscanallowoneeven toopen to loveagain.

TheReligiousFoundationofUnconditionalLove

Religionsthatmakeforgivenessavirtuemakeitdifficult todistinguishfeeling virtuous from feeling love. Both Eastern andWestern religionshave generated renunciate moralities wherein one achieves higherrewards through renouncing worldly (self-centered) ones. In both, theideal of unconditional love is put forth as the way to bridge the gapbetween the sacred and the secular. But rather than bridging the gap,this ideal actually is part of the artificial separation.20 Unconditionallove is another renunciate ideal of purity that places love and self-centerednessinopposition.Christisanarchetypalfigurethatprovestheextentofhisloveforhumanitythroughhiswillingnesstosuffer,sacrificehimself,andforgive.Themessageisthatalthoughonemaynotbeableto be totally Christ-like, the more like him, the better. Christ’s love,which is portrayed as pure and unsullied by selfish concerns, ispresented as a prescription for living. The lofty ideal hides theunderlyingauthoritariancontext.WithinChristianity,Christ’s supposedwordsaretakenasunchallengeableandaresetinalargerframeworkofretributionfordisobedience.As social reformers, Christ and Buddha softened the more rigid

ritualistic emphasis of Judaism and Hinduism. They infused a newempathetic spirit into religion throughpreaching loveandcompassion.Both disseminated selfless ideals incorporating sacrifice—giving upprivilege (caste) and possessions, sharing with the poor, loving one’senemies,etc.Bothbroughtamorehumanitariancontextintoaworldofmuch suffering and exploitation. This was achieved by putting forthidealsofselflesspuritythathumanitywastoreachforasbestitcould.Unconditional love is one such ideal; butwhat can it reallymean,notonlyforpeoplebutforChrist?“Forgivethem,Father,fortheyknownotwhattheydo”isgivenasan

exampleofhowforgivingandencompassingChrist’sloveis.Yetthisisastrangemessage if one takesChristianity at all seriously.Not only didChrist’sexecutionersknowwhat theyweredoing(obeyingorders),butsodidGod,whosenthimdowntobemartyred.Judas,Pilot,everybody

concernedwasjustfulfillingGod’splan.Christwasjustdoingwhathisfatherdemandedofhim.TheobedientsonwassacrificedtoshowGod’slove for humanity. Christwas offered as the sacrificial lamb to be thedoorwayforasinfulhumanitytoreachGod.HowunconditionalisGod’slove? Not very. For if people don’t do what they are told, they areshipped to a place of eternal pain. People aremade to feel guilty andinadequate(originalsin),thenrulesaregiventhatifobeyedallowthemtofeelbetteraboutthemselves.Christ’sunconditionalloveispartofanoverallcontext.Itisusualtofocusonthelovepartofthecontext,andnotonwhatitisembeddedin,which is one of themost authoritarian, thus conditional, structures onthe planet. In order to get Christ’s love, one has to believe in him; inordertobeforgiven,onemustnotonlyrepentandpleadforit,butonemust acknowledge the authority that designates what wrong-doing is.Thisisnotcondition-free.Love and self-sacrifice are joined in all renunciatemoralities.Whenunconditionalloveismadeintoaprescriptionofhowtobe,itisreallyanauthoritarianmechanismofcontrol.Ifonegives,orloves,orforgiveswillingly,itisn’tasacrifice.Theybecomesacrificeswhendonebecauseofanideal.Hereoneisnotonlycontrolledbytheidealbutwantsothersto be controlled by it, too. Historically control through roles and amorality of sacrifice probably did to some extent mitigate humanbrutality, although therewere always corruptions beneath such ideals.Butwhentheworldviewthatproppeduptherolesandofferedrewardsfor sacrifice is no longer believable, the corruptions become blatantlydestructive. The ideals then block and distort the natural humancapacity to love and bond. Love can only endure in the interface of arelationshipthatsupportsbothoneselfandtheother.

TimelessLovethroughTime

Love, which feels like the simplest, most innocent, most ingenuousexperience, becomes complicated because it does not occur as anisolated event free of ramifications nor unobstructed by its socialcontext.Thepowerof love is such thatonecanbecontrolledby it,orcontrol others with it. Historically its expression has been structured(controlled) through roles: husband,wife, priest, nun,master, disciple,etc.,eachofferingaparticulardoorwaytoopeningboundaries.Yetoldarchetypes are like a master template ensuring repetition, habits, andexpectationsthateventuallytamelove’swildness,erodingpassion.Onemayinitiallyembracegivenrolesasawayofexpressingcare.Whentheybecomedutiesandroutines(astheydo)thattheothertakesforgranted,typicallyoneendsbyfeelingeitherunappreciatedanduninspiredifonedoesone’s“job,”orguiltyifonedoesnot.Thisisnotaneroticcontext.Astheoldsocialandmoralframeworksunravel,sodotherolesthat

madethemwork.Idealsoflovewereinterwovenintoroles,andinsofarastherolesnecessitatedself-sacrifice,sodidthe ideals.Modernpeoplewhowish tobe self-definingare strugglingwithaway toexpress lovefromacontextthatisnotrole-bound,oratleastislessso.Thedifficultywith pioneering is that, unlike with roles, there are no inbuiltmechanisms for keeping boundaries open, especially after they haveclosed. The ideal of unconditional love comes from old dualistic,authoritariansystemsofmoralitythatdividethepurefromtheimpure,theunconditional from the conditional. Somepeoplewho subscribe tothisidealhavesaidsuchanomaliesas:“Iloveyouunconditionally,andtherefore what you do does not affect me”; “If you loved meunconditionally youwould try to satisfymy needs”; “If you lovedmeunconditionallyyouwouldmakenodemandsonmeatall.”Wheretheanomalylivesinthelasttwoexamplesisthateachisself-centeredandyetevokesselflessloveasjustificationforit.Suchideasaboutlovehavelittletodowithlovebecausetheyignorethelivingsituationsthatloveoccursin.Thecontextincludestheself-interestofbothpartiesandalsothe relationship itself that is a product of, but not reducible to, the

parties involved. Thismeans often one cannot divorce one’s own self-interestfromwhat’sbestfortherelationship.Timelesslovewhenexperiencedfeelsnewandinnocentbecauseitis;but in order for it to keep recurring, the context must also fosternewness. So for many the most intense feelings occur when therelationship is new,withouthurts or disillusionments.Thequestion is,can timeless love flourish through time? Can saying “I love you”representmorethanatimelessmomentandindicatethatthereisalsoanenduring aspect to love? It is the context that moves and changesthrough time, into which feelings of love come or not. The contextalwayshasconditionsthatcanopenorcloseboundaries,thatcanbuildorerodetrust.Acontextisbasicallytheplacewheretheinterplayofselflessnessandself-centerednessoccurs.Rolesdefine theareaswhere self-centerednessissanctionedandselflessnessisexpected.Thistranslatesintostructuringgivingandgetting.Roleshidethisinterplayunderthebannerofduties,rights, and obligations. Roles can keep boundaries open to an extent,more so if all concerned perform them well. Without roles, it is howgiving and getting are played out that most influences trust and theopeningorclosingofboundaries.Theideathatonecouldorshouldgiveendlessly, keeping one’s boundaries open unconditionally, with noconcernforreciprocity,isunlivableandunhealthy.Inrelationshipsthatdonotclingtoroles,acare-full,awarebalancingof giving and getting, of individuating andmergingwith another, notonly keeps the context for love alive, but actually allows it to flourishand grow through time. A context can be protected and nurturedprecisely because it has conditions. In general, servants dowhat theiremployers donotwant to; service usually involves doing this for free.Roles designate areas of service. When service comes freely from theheart, it isacherishedgift;whenit isexpectedortakenforgranted,itbecomes a duty or chore. A condition that keeps the context for lovenurtured is not to expect service in the name of love. Thismeans notexpecting another to do things for you that you do not wish to doyourself.So although in one sense love does not exist in time and expressesitself unconditionally at any given moment, the transformations of arelationship through timecreate thecontext for this tokeep recurring.

Timelesslovethathasnobounds,thatasksfornothinginreturn,movesthroughacontextoftimewhoseconditionsmustbetakenintoaccount.Therearemanyconditions inwhichunconditional love isnot likely toflower. Large among these are the unaware exercise of power andcontrol.Sincepowerandcontrolareaninevitableaspectofanyintimaterelationship, they need to be utilized with awareness and care. Socialcontexts of inequality are detrimental to any aware resolution of thepowerstruggleswithinintimacy.Actually,separatinganexperiencefromthesituationitoccursinisasartificial as the division between unconditional and conditional love.Timelesslove,whichfeelsunconditional,canonlycomeoutofacontextoftimewhichbyitsnaturecontainsconditions.Theconditionsmayvaryfrommechanical roles to the interplay of self-defining people. Love isalways the sameandyet alwaysdifferent. It is the same since it is anenergy,amagicunsulliedbytheencroachmentsoftime.Itisdifferentinthat itsdisplayisuniquelydependentuponanever-changingrelationalcontext.Whatthismeansisthattherearealwaysconditionsunderlyingunconditionallove.1“ThePowerofAbstraction:TheSacredWordandtheEvolutionofMorality”describeshowdualismandeither/or thinkinghavebeenused tobuildconcepts for socialandmoral control.Thenatureofparadoxanditsuseasadominanceployarediscussedin“TheAssaultonReason,”“TheOne-SidednessofOneness”in“Oneness,”andinthesectiononBuddhisminControl.2See “Guru Ploys” for examples. “The Seductions of Surrender” shows why people confusesurrenderwithlove.3“GoodandEvil” in “Satanismand theWorshipof theForbidden:Why It FeelsGood toBeBad”containsmoreonthissplit.4See “Oneness, Enlightenment, and the Mystical Experience” on the analogous confusionbetweenmystical experiences that feel timeless and theways they are conceptualized into anidealstateofbeingtimelessallthetime.5“Religion,Cults, and the SpiritualVacuum”and “ThePowerofAbstraction” show the linkbetween religion, morality, and self-sacrifice. The latter describes the evolution of this splitbetween the pure and impure, its link with authoritarianism, and how seemingly remoteabstractions impact life. “Who Is in Control?” details how authoritarian ideologies internallydividepeople,creatingadividedselflockedininnerconflict.6“TransformingtheSymbolSystem”in“ThePowerofAbstraction”explainsmorefullywhatismeantbydialectical.7See “The Function of Enlightenment” in “Oneness.” “What Is Selfless Service Serving?” inControldiscusses thecontradictionsandramificationsof thisvaluewithinBuddhismandotherrenunciatereligions.

8See“WhoIsinControl”ontheinnerconflictthatisareactionagainstself-controlbasedonauthoritarianvalues.9“Renunciation as Accumulation” at the end of “Oneness” shows why ideals of purity,

ironically,areaproductoftheaccumulationmentality.10“The Seductions of Surrender” describes the mechanical ways passion occurs in

authoritariancontextsofsubmission.11“ThePowerofAbstraction”describesthewayaccumulationshiftedthestructuresofpower

andmorality.Thisdevelopmentiscoveredinmoredepthin“TheRootsofAuthoritarianism,”asection in Control. “Satanism and the Worship of the Forbidden” discusses the intrinsic linkbetweenworshipandpower.12“TheAmbiguityofParentalAuthority”inControldiscussespowerandcontrolinthefamily.13The section on boundaries in “East andWest: LookingWithin and LookingWithout” (in

Control) describes their functions. It also discusses the confusions that arise from notacknowledgingtherealityofboundaries,andshowsthatopeningandclosingaretwosidesofadialecticalprocess.14“WhoIsinControl?”elbaoratesonhowtheselfless/selfishdichotomyisakeyfactorinthe

unconsciousdynamicsinvolvedin“lossofcontrol.”15“Buddhism and the Abuse of Detachment” in Control shows the problems inherent in

desiringtobedesireless.16“The Seductions of Surrender” discusses in depth why surrender itself is seductive. “The

TrapsofBeingaGuru”describes theaddictivequalityof receivingadulation.When these twosymmetricalstancesconnect,theyoftenproducepatternsbetweentwopeoplesimilartothoseofgurusanddisciples.17This embedded relationship is described in “Surrender” (Part One) and in “TheAbuse of

Detachment”(inControl).18Conversionexperiencesarecoveredin“InducingSurrender”in“GuruPloys.”19See“WhoIsinControl”ontheinternaldynamicsofseeminglyout-of-controlviolenceand

ofwife-beatingasanaddiction.20For more on the nature of the separation between the spiritual and worldly and how it

createdrenunciatereligionsthatcontrolpeoplethroughidealsofself-sacrifice,see“ThePowerofAbstraction,” “On Channeling Disembodied Authorities,” “Good and Evil” in “Satanism,” and“DualismandRenunciation”in“Oneness.”

MOneness,Enlightenment,andtheMysticalExperience

any people, through various routes, have experienced whathave become known as altered states of consciousness. By

“altered”whatismeantisthatthewayexperienceisbothtakeninandframed isdifferent fromone’sordinaryday-to-dayexperience.The twomainroutesofalteration(perhapseachasoldashumanity)arethroughsubstances (chemicals inplantsor synthetics)andpractices that loosenupthewaythemindstructuresexperience.Alteredstatescanalsooccurthrough near-death experiences, great stress, or spontaneouslywithoutanyknowncause.

TheMysticalExperience

Oneofthemostlife-changingofthesealteredstatesiswhatiscalledthemystical experience, theessenceofwhich is theactual experiencingofan underlying unity within all existence. We call this the Onenessexperience.Whilethisexperienceisoccurring,itfeelsbeyondwordsandconcepts,beyond time,beyondallpolarities (including lifeanddeath),andbeyondeventhefeelingoftherebeinganexperiencerwhoishavingtheexperience.The infusionofmore easily accessedmysticism intoWestern culture

began in the sixties. For still unknown reasons, powerful psychedelicdrugs bypass the ordinary ways the human brain integrates, makingavailable experiences that previously could only be read about inesoteric books. Many leaders in the then-budding human potentialmovementandyoungaspirantsinthearts,humanities,andscienceshadtheir worldviews chemically jolted. Eastern spiritual structures offeredroutesofexplainingandintegratingtheseexperiencesinawayWesternonessimplycouldnot.Someexperimentersloudlyandpubliclyextolledtheir newfound insights,whilemany othersmore quietly incorporatedthem into their viewpoints. Eastern spiritual teachers either came ontheirownorwerebroughttotheWesttoplowthisfertileground.Theactual mystical experience along with the interpretations of Easterncosmologies became dual influences on psychology, music, art, andfashion. This even shifted the perspectives of many who were notdirectlyinvolvedinthepsychedelicculture.Mysticismwasintheair.OnceapersonhashadaOnenessexperience,itisnotdifficulttomake

being in that special state more of the time, or all of the time, themeaningandgoalof life.Thiscanalsobetruefor thosewhohavenothadtheexperience,buthaveheardofitandgiveitcredence.Doingthisisreinforcedbypresumedspiritualmasterswhonotonlyclaimtoliveinthisexaltedstate,butalsoinsinuatethatthisplaceofunityismorerealandsuperiortoordinaryrealitywhereseparationisexperienced.Although all who have had mystical experiences acknowledge they

cannot be captured within the frameworks of thought, different

traditions do attempt to frame them in their different ways. Peoplehaving such experiences have been previously conditioned by theirculture and time, which affects how the experience is viewed andintegratedafterwards.Mysticalexperiencesdonotcreateatabularasa,acleanslate;but rather,whatever insightsoccurget interpreted throughdifferent lenses. This is why Hindus have Hindumystical experiences,Christians have Christian ones, etc. Thus Christian mystics canexperience God in everything and still keep the transcendent Godnecessary for dualistic Christianity. The Easternmystic can experienceeverythingasGod,andsonotonlyhaveanimmanentGod,butbuildaframework where ostensible non-duality (Oneness for the Hindu, theVoid for theBuddhist) is theultimate reality. So theway themysticalexperience is experienced is not “pure” (nothing is) but is historicallyandculturallyembedded.TheconceptofOnenessisanabstractioncreatedbythoughtasawayofframingandattemptingtodescribethemysticalexperience.InsofarasOneness is placed in a higher realm or plane than the world ofseparationandmultiplicity (theMany), this isdonebyabstractingoutand reifying a presumedquality or essence from life, andmaking thatmoreimportantthantheindividualexpressionsoflifeitself.Insodoing,the plurality (the many forms) of existence is trivialized. This isrepresentative of the historic pattern followed by all accumulationcultures inwhichthespiritualwasabstractedout fromthesecularandexaltedaboveit.1In the East, the abstractions derived from mystical experiences ofunity have created not only the concept of Oneness, but a religiousideology,ethics,andhierarchythatflowfromit.(Wedefineideologyasa worldview containing a program or ideal of how to live—i.e., amorality.) The mystical experience is important, both as a historicalfactor influencing theperceptionsofhumanity, andalsobecauseof itsrelevanceforindividuals.Buttraditionsthatmadeanideologyoutoftheconcept ofOneness created amorality that denigrated ormadeunrealthe individual self with its individual interests. Any worldview thatdenieseithertherealityor importanceof the individuatedselfendsupdefining virtue as selflessness,which is achieved through self-sacrifice.When renouncing self-interest is the spiritual path, we define themorality as renunciate. Renunciate moralities have neither eliminated

nor diminished self-interest, but have often made its expression morehiddenandthuscorruptible.ThischapterwillshowhowtheconceptofOneness is used by spiritual authorities tomake their pronouncementsunchallengeable,andthereforeauthoritarian.2Those who attempt to communicate the experience of unity usuallybeginwithacaveatonthe limitationsofwordstocapture it,andthenproceedtodescribeitintheseways:

1.Oneexperiencesbeingintheeternal,aplacethatalwayswasandalwayswillbe.2. There can be a great energy that breaks through boundaries to the extent ofexperiencingone’sawarenessexpandinguntilitseemsto(orcould)includeeverything.3.Theordinaryseparationsbetweenwhat’smeandnot-meeithermomentarilydisappearorbecomereallyambiguous.4.Thereareoften(thoughnotalways)deepfeelingsofidentification—onemightevencallitlove—withthecosmos.5.One“knows”thisplaceisalwaystheretobetappedinto.6.Theplacefeelsforeignandyetfamiliaratthesametime.7.Thereisbothaweandafeelingofpersonalinsignificance,wherethemundaneconcernsandemotionsaroundself-enhancementandself-protectionseemtrivialandbeside thepoint.8.Thereisnofear,becausedeathfeelsquiteunreal.Orinaslightlydifferentvein,whenyou cease identifying with yourself and merge with the cosmos, it feels like you’vealready died, so there’s nothing left to fear. This cessation of fear is one of themostmarvelouslyunusualfeelings,bringingdeeprelaxationonlevelsonedidn’tevenknowexisted.9.Onefeels immunefrombeingaffectedbythejudgmentsofothers,andalsofreefromsuchpettyresponsesasvengeanceandcompetitiveness.Afterall,weareallone.Alongthis line, all so-called negative emotions—anger, jealousy, etc.—can seem not onlyunnecessary,butsillyandbasedonillusions.10.Thereisarecognitionthatoneis(orweallare)anaspectofGod.11.Everything(oneselfincluded),andthewaythecosmosisunfolding,isseenasperfect.

Experiencing this underlyingunity initially can feel better andmorerealthannormalreality,andafterwarditisdifficultnottobecomewhatwe call God-or Oneness-intoxicated. The experience of having noboundaries, feelingeternal,andbeingatpeacewiththecosmoscanbesopowerful that it’s hardnot toprojecthowwonderful itwouldbe ifeveryone could only get beyond the ego attachments presumed to bekeeping this state away. Being in this state as much as possible canbecomeone’smajorlifegoal.Forthosewhohavetastedtheabove,“ordinaryreality”caneasilybe

interpreted as containing opposite characteristics or qualities: fear andambition, endless preferences, boundaries between self and other,awarenessofone’slimits,andthemarchtowarddeath.Ineverydaylifeoneisaffectedbytheemotionsofothersandsubjecttoalltheunwantedfeelings. Instead of feeling at one with the universe, feelings ofdisconnectionanddiscontentarerife.Perfectionisnotexperienced,butisatbestanelusiveideal.The aspects of ego that separate—pride, envy, selfishness, greed,

ambition, competitiveness, etc.—seem not only paltry and pitiful incomparison,buteasilycanbeviewedasentirelynegative.TheOnenessexperience comes to represent all that is positive, true, and real.Separationbecomesthebadguywithnoinherentvalue,theenemythatkeepsOnenessaway,oras inHinduism,maya—thegrandillusion.Themeaning of life, or the spiritual path, then becomes transcendingseparationandallthenegativitiestherein.

DualismandRenunciation

The actual experience of underlying unity is different from thoughtcreating an abstract concept of it, and thenmaking that conceptmorerealthanindividuatedexistence.Whatshouldnotbeforgottenisthatittakes an individual to experienceunity.Oneness is an abstraction thatpresents itself as beyond dualism, but has within it a hidden duality.Dividingthecosmosintotwocategoriesorlevelsofrealityisdualisticbynature. The ideology of Oneness (as opposed to the experience of it)createsanoppositionwithmultiplicity,callingitself“higher”andmorereal.Andalthough themystical experiencecangiveapersonadeeperconnectionwiththecosmos,bycontrasttheideologyofOnenesswithitscamouflaged, hierarchical dualismhas separated the spiritual from theworldlyandhumanityfromnature.Dualism divides everything into two basic categories. In Western

religions it is overt—God and God’s creation. When existence is sodivided,onesideofthedivision—inthisinstanceGod—isalwaysvaluedmorethantheother.Thiscreatesanobvioushierarchyofvaluebetweenthe two categories, asGod is superior to its creation. It also creates ahierarchy of value within the lesser category based on the virtues ordictates of the higher one. That is, themore godlike, or at least God-fearing and hence obedient, the better. The same kind of dualistic,either/or framework of conceptualizing is operative in the ideology ofOneness,butismaskedbytheconceptitself,whichproclaimstheunityofallbeingandthusseemsall-encompassing.Butifunityisvaluedmorethan diversity, the inevitable result is the attempt to get to unity bynegating or in some fashion lessening the value and importance ofseparation. Thus the way that much of Eastern spirituality has beenframedinvolvesidentifyingwiththeprincipleofunitythroughdenying,renouncing, dis-identifying with, or trivializing separation. Becomingmoreaware,more“spiritual,”isthenseenasmovingone’sidentityfromthe personal (and thus the limited) to the totality. “Everything isperfect”; “I am that”; “We are all one”; “Separation is an illusion” areexamplesofidentifyingonlywithunity.

Renunciation requires two sharplydefinedhierarchical categories—alower one to renounce in order to achieve the higher one. The higherone is usuallymade sacred, which justifies sacrificing the lower to it.Whenunity isconsideredbetterormore real thandiversity,emulatingthevaluesabstractedoutof theconceptofOneness ispresentedas thesolutiontotheproblemswithinindividuatedlife.Thisresultsinmakingpeople’s concerns with their own individual lives the source of allproblems.Inshort,thisistheEast’swayofmakingself-centerednessthevillain. This would include valuing cooperation over competition,altruismoveregoism,andgivingovergetting.3Inanarticleon“spiritualmasters”(Omni,March1990),adiscipleofanEasterngururecountedavignettetoillustratehowhismastercouldteachaprofoundlessoninafewwords.Theguruwashavingatemplebuilt in his honor. Disciples from all over theworld had come to thecornerstone ceremony with treasures, many of them of considerablevalue,tobeburiedinthelargeholeunderthefoundation.Thenarratorhad been chosen as the first to deposit his offering in the hole. Hedescribeshowinhisprideatbeingselectedtobefirst,hechosealargerockandenthusiasticallythrewitin.Hethenlookedathismaster,whosaid to him quietly, “Too much ‘getting’ is going on here.” The manconcludedbysayingthathishumbledegobecamefarwiserasaresultofthosefewwords.For thechastiseddisciple, theguru’s lessonwasa statement thathisgivingwasnotpureenough.Anotherentirelydifferentinterpretationoftheabovescenarioispossible:Tohaveatemplebuiltinone’shonorandthentofurtherwastevaluablegiftsbyburyingthemtosymbolizeone’sgreatnessisasignofamonumentalegothathaslittleconstraint.Oneofthe cheapest guruploys is tomakepeople feel inadequateby showinghowtheirbehaviorsare taintedwithself-centeredness—alwaysaneasytask.Thisguru,whowastherecipientofallofthis“getting,”couldnoteven share a little of itwithhis disciplewithoutmakinghim feel badabout himself. Perhaps the disciple’s gift, amere rock, was not grandenough.Butsincetheguruisviewedbyhisdisciplesasapersonbeyonddualityandbeyondego,theycouldnotevenentertainthepossibilityofourinterpretation.Consequently, the disciple entirelymissed the real lesson of history:The guru’s “getting” and self-enhancement are masked by images of

enlightenmentandselflessnessandthusaremadeunconscious.Oncehispurityandhencesuperiorityaretakenforgranted,itisassumedthathedeservestobe“getting”preciselybecauseheisthoughtenlightened.Hecanthusreprimandhisdisciplefortheveryactivityhewasinvolvedinon a far grander scale without it seeming hypocritical. Who gets andwhogives is never questionedbecause “spiritual” valuesmaskwhat isreallygoingon.

TheFunctionofEnlightenment

ThemajorEasternreligionsmakereferencetoastateofconsciousnessofadifferentordercalledenlightenment.Itsfoundationliesinthemysticalexperience of unity that has been conceptualized asHinduOneness orthe Buddhist Void. From this came the idea of the “enlightened one”wholivesinthisexaltedplaceallthetime,mostofthetime,oratleastasignificantly greater amount of time than ordinary folk—having at theveryminimum some control over access to that place. The traditionalconceptionofenlightenmentinvolvestwomajorcomponents:

1.Beingatonewiththeuniversetotheextentofhavingnoegoorboundariesaroundtheself.2.Ahierarchyofvaluewhereinthemoreselflessoneis,thebetter,withthehigheststatebeingtotalselflessness.

The way an “enlightened” person is supposed to manifestenlightenment is through being selfless and beyond any need for egogratification. So the image of the enlightened one is of being totallygiving,unconditionallycompassionateand loving,andwithno taintofgreed,envy, lust,orcompetitiveness.Thosewhowishtobeconsideredenlightenedmustpresentthemselvesasbeing“aboveitall”—beyondallthe foibles of ego: beyond preference, beyond negativity, beyond fearanddesire,etc.Suchindividualspaintaseductivepictureofastatetheycanhelpothersgettothatisnotonlyeternalbutthatcansolveallthemundaneproblemsoflife.Creating a special category called the “enlightened state” is itself a

manifestation of an accumulation mentality, it becoming the ultimategoal to achieve through accumulatingmerit and partially enlighteningexperiences. One day or lifetime, one finally crosses the barrier andarrives. Then one is a perfectmanifestation of the godhead—aperfectmaster with nowhere else to go. You work toward the goal ofenlightenment and once you get it, you have it. Theway the ideal isconstructed makes it static and unchanging. The experience of unityfeelstimeless,buttheconceptofenlightenmentturnsatimelessmoment

intoan“allthetime”fixedidentitythatcontinuesovertime.Ironically,theidentityofbeingenlightenedattemptstocrystallizeintimewhatisexperiencedastimeless.Once one gives credence to such an identity either in oneself or inanother, this creates a dualistic, either/or framework: one is eitherenlightenedornotenlightened—thisorthat.Thisisanotherexampleofhowconstructing two separate categories andgivingonegreatervalue(it’s better to be enlightened) creates a hierarchy of value not onlybetween the two, but also within the less valued (non-enlightened)category.Thoseviewedasnotenlightenedareconsideredbetter to thedegree they emulate the images of enlightenment. This basicallyamountstomeasuringtheextentofselflessness.Onceexistence isbifurcated into twocategories,abridge is requiredbetween the twoparts. Inboth theEast andWest, religions create thetwo realms and then become the bridge between them. They design a“spiritualpath”fromthelowertothehigherthroughdefiningtheproperactionstogetonefromhere(thisworld)tothere(howeversalvationisdefined). In the East via karma/rebirth, the path progresses throughlevels of spirituality, taking many lifetimes until arriving at theenlightened state—also referred to as nirvana, moksha, cosmicconsciousness,etc.Thisconceptionislinearandhierarchical,asarethereligionsthatproducedit.Someschools(TibetanBuddhism)haveevenconstructedhierarchicallevelsofenlightenment,sothatoneenlightenedbeing is held to bemore so than another.Among spiritual seekers theburningissueishowfaralongthepathoneis.Assertingabasicunitypermeatingallexistencedoesnotautomaticallylenditselftohierarchy.Enlightenmentisthewayhierarchyisbroughtinby viewing a few individuals as special channels for, and greatermanifestations of, this underlying unity.Once it is assumed that somepeopleembodyorexpressthetruenatureofrealitymorethanothers,anauthoritarian hierarchy easily flows from that basic assumption. Thisalsolaysthefoundationforperpetuatingthehierarchy,becausetheonewhoknowsbestcandecidewhoisenlightenedandtherebytransferthemantle of authority.One person decidingwhen another is enlighteneddoes seem a bit strange. One would presume that if enlightened, onewouldknowitwithoutbeingtold.Yetthisiswhatoccurswithinmanyspiritualframeworks.

Theidealofenlightenmentatfirstblushseemscompletelyinnocentofhumancorruptionbecauseitisdefinedasbeingtotallyselfless.Yetitisthis sacrosanct concept of perfection that allows authoritarianism tomanifest, and indeed flourish. Two mental constructions work intandem: Enlightenment provides authorities, and karma as a cosmicmoral lawprovides themetaphysical justification forwhy some ratherthan others come to be enlightened authorities. These two conceptsintertwine and validate each other, creating an impenetrable closedsystemthatperpetuates itself.Superiorpast livesareusedtolegitimizespecialstatus,whilethosewithspecialstatuspresentthekarma/rebirthideologyasanunchallengeabletruth.4Monotheism with one God on top is obviously authoritarian. Theauthoritarianism embedded within the Eastern ideology of Oneness islessobvious.BelievingthatGodiseverywhereandineverythingmakesa centralized hierarchy more difficult. The concept of enlightenment,however, does bring decentralized hierarchies, each with a master ontop. This is what one sees in Eastern religion and in its Westerntransplants. Whereas monotheism makes the revealed Word of Godsacred,Easternreligionsmakepresumedenlightenedbeingssacred.Thusthe concept of enlightenment brings authoritarianism at the personal,charismatic level (gurus, masters, avatars, and buddhas). Here theauthority comes from living people, not an institution—although theyalmost always create an institution around themselves or are alreadypartofone.Notcoincidentally,surrenderingtoandobeyingthemasterispresentedasa(usuallynecessary)steponthepathtoenlightenment.Theverynatureofanystructurethatmakesonepersondifferentandsuperiortoothersnotonlybreedsauthoritarianism,butisauthoritarianinitsessence.JustasthereisnowayforhumanstoquestionaremoteGod,thereisreallynowayforanon-enlightenedbeingtoquestionthewordsoractionsofapresumedenlightenedone.Thisiswhyguruscanget away with anything—they are judged by different standards thatmakewhatevertheydoperfectbydefinition.Theideathatsomeoneisnolongersusceptibletothecorruptionsofpowerensurescorruptionwilloccur, promulgating self-delusion in all involved. So the concept ofenlightenment,preciselybecauseitissoexalted,almostinevitablylendsitself to abuse and corruption. It can be used to justify any behavior,privileges, or excesses, creating an insidious double standard for the

superiorones.There are even warnings about the traps of enlightenment within

esoteric literature, where it is said that no one who has had trulyenlightening experiences ever claims tobe enlightened.Perhaps this isbecauseanyonewithrealwisdomwouldknowthatbuildinganidentityaroundenlightenmentcreatesastatic,unchangingimageofhowtobe,which is just another cage. Let us leave aside the question ofwhetherthere is or ever has been a person of ultimate cosmicwisdom, totallydevoidofself-centeredness.Theonlypersonwhocouldsay“Yes, thereis”withcertaintywouldhavetobeone.Andthatpersonwouldhavetobeabsolutelycertainofbeingfreeofallself-delusion—notaneasytask.5Theveryideaofenlightenmenthashiddenassumptionswithinitthat

are part of our authoritarian heritage. An example is the presumptionthatamodernmanifestationofenlightenmentwouldsayessentiallythesamethingsasweresaidthousandsofyearsago.Thisisanoddimageoffinality within an otherwise evolving cosmos. People do haveenlighteningexperiencesandinsights,butaretheyalwaysarepetitionofoldinsightsthatothershadthousandsofyearsago?Isawarenessapathothers have trod that leads to a predictable end? The concept ofenlightenment needs to be a-historical, unchanging, and infallible tosupport authoritarian religious hierarchies. This is the East’s way ofendowingsomeonewiththelastwordandultimateauthorityoncosmictruth.Buddhainitiallyexcludedwomenfromhismonasteries.Whenpressed,

he made their entry conditional upon perpetual subservience to thelowliest (newest) male monks. Was this an example of unchangingwisdom? Or were some of his ideas not so enlightened, but rather afunction of his place in history? His agenda to end suffering has hadmillenniatotestitselfandhasfailed.Arepeoplejustnotgoodenoughorsmart enough? Is there somethingwrongwith people or is somethingwrongwiththeagenda?Hismethodologyforendingsufferingwastiedtotheconceptofenlightenment,whichinvolvesrenouncingboththeselfandself-centeredness.Soasanessentiallyrenunciatereligion,Buddhismis also essentially authoritarian, with Buddha being the absoluteauthority onwhat to renounce and how to go about it. SomemodernBuddhistswouldbristleatcallingBuddhismrenunciate.Theywouldsaythatthroughdis-identifyingordetachingfromtheillusionthatthereisa

self,self-centerednesseffortlesslyleaves.Weviewthisastheirillusion.6Somepeoplemayat timesseemoredeeply into thenatureof thingsthan others. However, the idea of enlightenment as a state of finalitythat one reaches once and for all is a viewpoint of wisdom andspiritualitythatissupposedlytrueforallpeopleandalltimes.Thisstaticview of enlightenment derives from the a-historic Oneness ideologywherein one transcends the illusion of separateness. Only separateentitiescanchange inrelationtoeachother. Ironically,Buddhistswhoassert there is nothing but change in the material world hold thatspiritual realizations do not change. Denying change in the spiritualrealmisbasicallyafundamentaliststanceusedtoprotectthesacredandtradition.7 But perceiving deeply is a process that is necessarilyhistorically embedded, for each epoch has its particular illusions thatmust be pierced. Significantly, a less common meaning of anenlightening experience is penetrating the veils of illusion.We see thedis-illusionmentnecessaryforthisageasgoingbeyondthepolarizationsofeither/ormoralframeworks,whicharethesourceofmostdistortionsand illusions.Any ideology thatpresentsstatic idealsofperfectionandattainment necessarily creates its own illusions. This anti-evolutionaryview of awareness andwisdom not only blocks further inquiry, but itlimits the possibility of constructing new frameworks that can freepeopletobetrulymoreaware.

TheOne-SidednessofOneness

It is throughconstructing images that idealizeunityandselflessness tothe detriment of separateness that spirituality andmorality have goneawry.Byasleightofmindwhicheasilypassesunnoticed,theexperienceof an underlying unity is turned into the ideology of Oneness, whichcontainsbothunwarrantedassumptionsabout reality andprescriptionsonhowtobe.Thecommonestonesare:

1. Such experiences are more real than ordinary reality, and so unity is superior todiversity.2. It is possible tobe in themystical state all the timeand, of course, themoreyou’retherethebetter.3.Thepathtounityisthroughnegatingindividuation.Heredescriptionsofunityturnintoprescriptionsforindividualstonolongeractlikeindividuals.4.Followingapresumed“arrived”masteristhebestwaytogetthere.

The experience of being a part of something larger (even thewholecosmos) is very different from declaring the wholemore real than itsparts.Justas it takesan individual tohavethisexperience, it takesanindividual mind to construct the ideology of Oneness—an ideologywhich quixotically denies the individuated reality of the personconstructingit.If,asweseeit,diversity(theMany)isjustasrealastheunderlying unity (the One), then attempting to solve the problems ofday-to-day life by inappropriately superimposing the values abstractedoutoftheconceptofOnenesswillnotwork.8Ifunityanddiversity,theOne and theMany, are embedded in eachother, then values ofmoralpurity that deny separation and villainize self-centeredness spawn anunderbellyofcorruption.9Wewishtoshowhowelevatingonesideofadialecticalrelationship

(unity) over the other (separation) generates an unlivable renunciatemorality. If, from the point of view of the One, everything is perfect,thenhowcanonejudgethistobebetterthanthat,orinfacthaveanypreferences at all? So from this, an ideal of spirituality is built thatinvolvesmakingnojudgmentsandhavingnopreferences.Heretheideal

is to loveeveryoneandeverythingequally,becauseone issupposedtobefreeofattachmentstoanyparticularexpressionofthisunity—i.e.,toanypersonorobject.Soproblemswithinindividuatedlifearoundsuchissues as power, competition, envy, jealousy, manipulation, sexuality,andself-centeredness ingeneralarewrongly thought tobe solvablebyadopting thevalues that come from looking at existence as a seamlesswebofunity.But if existence has seams (boundaries), and if individuation is anirreducible aspect of it, then trying to solve the problems withinindividuatedlifebysuperimposingvaluesderivedfromadifferentlevelof abstraction (unity) can only lead to confusion and paradox. Anelement in opening and closing boundaries involves judgments on thepart of an organism as to what to let in or keep out. This serves toprotectandtomaintainsomedegreeofindividualintegrity.Judgmentsareonlypossiblebecausethereareindividualswithdifferencesthatcanbe judged. If making judgments and distinctions is necessary whendealingwitheachotherandlife,theproblemsofjudgmentalismcannotbe unraveled by reactively positing an ideal of being non-judgmental.The fact is, people make judgments about everything all the time.Comparison and judgment are part of the way thought works to sortthingsout—survivaldependsonthis.ThepreferenceforOnenessisitselfhighlyironic,asisthejudgmentthatit’sbetternottojudge.Such ironies abound in mystical writings, where so many of theseemingparadoxesinvolvealevelsshiftofidentificationfromthesmall“I” of individuated life to the big “I” of the totality of being. Themystical experience of unity has an eternal quality. How easy it is toprojectthatqualityontooneselfandsay,“I,theindividual,ameternal.”This can then be used to validate any afterlife conception such askarma/rebirth.10Experiencinganunderlyingunitycanalterone’srelationshiptodailylife and also profoundly change the way one approaches death anddying. Itcanincreasecompassionandempathy,andbringthecapacitytoseeoneselfasaplayerinaneternaldrama.Itcanalsoaddapoignantdimension to the seeming paradox whereby each of us is less than aspeckofawarenessintheschemeofexistence,andyeteachofusisalsoacenterintheuniverse.TosayweareallGodiswellandgood,butnotatthecostofdenyingourhumanitywithallitsseemingfoibles.

In spiritual realms, because what is considered proof by science orlogicisattimesnotapplicable,theideologyofOnenesshashistoricallyremained aloof from serious critique. Challenges coming from overtlydualistic frameworks (monotheism) can be easily dealt with becauseOneness is a higher level of abstraction. Similarly, monotheism canincorporateallthewantedattributesofpolytheisticgodsintooneGod.Amonotheistic God is more remote with more abstract qualities thanpolytheisticgods.Todistinguishpolytheisticgodsfromeachother,theymusteachbegiventraitsandidentities,aswellastheirownrealmsofpowerandimportance.Monotheismcreatedanewconceptofpowerbysubsuming all power traits into one abstract quality—omnipotence. Italsodidthiswithknowledge(omniscience)andvirtue(perfection).Asahigherlevelofabstraction,monotheismcouldexplainawaypolytheism,while polytheism could not explain awaymonotheism. Similarly, as alower level of abstraction,monotheism has a problemwith explainingOneness.11Pantheism, which simply says everything is God, is an even higherlevel of abstraction, as it does away with dualism altogether. Astraightforwardpantheismmaybeintellectuallyappealingbecauseofitssimplicityandinternalconsistency,butithasgravemoraldifficulties.IfeverythingisGod,howcantheactionsofanyonepartofGodbebetterorworse thananyother?Howcanany trait (love)bebetter thananyother (greed)? The ideology of Oneness contains a hidden dualismprecisely to make certain expressions of unity better and higher thanothers. Still,Oneness is a higher level of abstraction thanmonotheismbecause theway it separates spirit frommatter is less absolute. It canincorporate monotheism into its framework, while monotheism, bydefinition,cannotdealwiththeunityofallbeingexceptbydenyingit.Apractical example: Hinduism can call Christ another avatar (puremanifestationofGod)and inone fell swoop includeChristianityunderitsbanner.There were Eastern thinkers aware of the hidden dualism in mostconceptionsofunity.Thewaytheyattemptedtoreconcilethisinvolvedusing paradoxes that mysteriously evoked the idea that the separatepartsarebothseparateandnotseparateatthesametime:“TheOneistheMany”(inHinduterms)and“Nirvanaissamsara”(inBuddhistterms,meaning“TheVoidistheworldofform”)areexamplesofthis.Wehave

noproblemwithconstructions thatpoint todifferent thingshappeningat different levels (the different levels here being unity and diversity).Paradoxisusefulasanindicationthatalevelsshiftisoccurring—butnotif it is used to cut off inquiry, as is usual. Our problem with suchconceptions is that they are embedded in a worldview that acts as ifunityweresomehowmorereal.Theviewofenlightenmentthatisapartof such constructions still involves shedding ego and identifying withonly one side.What these thinkers neglect tomention is that, aswithpantheism,ifunityisnotmorerealthandiversity,therenunciateethicsthatarebasedongivingunityprioritycomeintoquestion.TheideologyofOnenessconstructsitshiddendualismbymakingthe

wholemoresacredormorerealthanitsparts.Sacralizingunityplacesitin another realm, “the spiritual.” Once anything is made sacred,sacrificing to and for it is inevitable. When selflessness is the highestvirtue, the spiritual path becomes practices that seemingly promote it.The difficulty of testing this ideology is compounded by making thepromisedpayoffsoccurafterdeath.Atotallysecularideologythatvaluesthe parts sacrificing for the whole, like Marxism, does not have thatluxury.12 Ifwithin a few generations it does not begin to improve thequality of life, it loses credence and crumbles. Yet not to look at thelong-termresultsofanyworldview,nomatterhowotherworldly,istrulyremiss.One of the longest experiments in history, the approximately 3000-

year-old Eastern ideology of Oneness, was first developed in theUpanishads.Itdoeshaveonecomponentwhoseresultscanbeexaminedin thisworld—theefficacyof itsmoral systemtodowhat it setout todo: eliminate or evenmoderatedivisiveness and self-centeredness. Thefailure of its renunciate morality to diminish self-centeredness is apowerfulstatementthatsomethingisamiss.Theusualreasonsgivenforthis are either that humanity has not tried hard enough or isn’t goodenough. (“We as a species have more karma to work out.”) It is ourcontention that thismoralityhas failednotbecause there is somethingwrongwithpeople,butbecausetheframeworkconstructsidealsthatareimpossible to achieve, thus setting people up for failure and self-mistrust. That it has been around so long and has not even temperedhumandivisivenessshouldnotbetakenlightly.Theincongruitythatthemosthighlystructuredandinternallydivided

culture (India) originated and nurtured the Oneness framework is noaccident.Caste,withitsprivilegesthroughthehierarchyitsetsup,hasproven to be one of the most powerful and lasting ways of dividingpeople.Themoralstructureissimple:peopledotheirprescribeddutiesandstrivetoeliminateself-centeredness;alongtheway“goodkarma”isgenerated that pays off in increasingly better next lifetimes. The casteoneisborninisafunctionofone’skarma.Makingseparationanillusionisusefultoboththe“haves”andthe“have-nots”:theprivilegeduseittoself-protect by removing themselves from the surrounding misery; themiserableuse it to copewith ahopeless situation.Themessageof theprivilegedtotheunderprivilegedis,“Ifyouacceptyour lot,whichyoudeserve,nexttimearoundyou’llbebetteroff.”Thisisthesourceofthedeepresignationonefindsthere.Thecategoryofillusionfunctionslikeacosmicrefusecollector intowhichonecandumpwhateveronedoesn’tlikeorwantstogetridof,byclaimingitisn’treal.

HolismandInterconnectedness

Conceptsofunityareveryappealing,sinceitisincreasinglyobviousthatdivisivenessanduncaringself-interestareparamountcausesofwhytheplanetisbecomingunfitforlife.Manywhoareecologically-mindedandpeace-oriented are attracted to the Oneness model because on thesurface it seems to fit the planet’s need for people to realize thateverythingisinterconnected.Thedangerinholisticthinkingliesinnotgivingseparationanequalplaceintheschemeofthings.There is a strain within holistic thinking that posits the total

interconnectedness of everything (the cosmos) such that every changeanywhereaffectseverythingelse.Inthisframework,existenceislookedupon as a giganticmobilewherein a tug anywheremoves everything.This is an example of horizontal thinking (which tends to beholistic).Believing that somehow the shifting grains of sand on a beach eitheraffectorareaffectedby,say,afireintheBronx,letaloneadistantstargoing nova, is necessary if one is to take the above theory seriously.Giving priority to unity over diversity leads to these kinds ofassumptions.Oftenfavoringsuchholistichorizontalthinkinghaswithinitananti-

hierarchical political agenda, sometimes hidden. Hierarchicalconceptualizations do involve thinking vertically and creatingboundaries of separation. It is also true that the prevalent type ofvertical thinking and the justifications therein are at the base of theworld’sinequities.(“I’mbetterthanyou.”)Sointhequestforjustice,it’stemptingtotrytodiscardverticalthinkingandhierarchies.Tous,thisisbut another example of either/or framing that negates the reality ofseparationandboundaries.Nottoacknowledgeboundariesarerealandthat without them there would be no life (or anything else for thatmatter)alsomakesrelationshipsunreal.Forwithoutboundarieswhatisrelatingtowhat?13Thewaysystemsinterrelateisbothhorizontalandvertical.Ahuman

beingcouldbeviewedasahierarchyofinterrelatingsystems,fromthesub-atomic through thesocial.Eachsystemhasboundaries thatcanbe

crossed by other systems parallel to it (two human beings are parallelsystems),aswellasthoseaboveandbelowit.Acellisasystemwithaboundary containing molecules which, because they are part of itscomposition,aresystemsonalevelbelowit.Thecellitselfcanbepartof an organ,which is a system above it. Systems in proximity usuallyhaveaneasiertimecrossingboundariesandaffectingeachother.Within this framework, it is not by any means a given that alloccurrenceswithinasystembreakoutoftheboundariesofthatsystemto affect anything outside it, let alone everything else. A pebble isdroppedinthemiddleofthelake;ripplesexpandoutwardbutdissipatebefore reaching theboundariesof lakeand shore.Thepebblenotonlydidnotaffecttheshore,butmightnothavehadaneffectonanyormostfishinthelake.This isnot to say that themovementof apebbleor agrainof sandcould not have far-reaching effects; it simply says it doesn’t have to.What itdoesmeanis thatboundariesarereal,andeffectscantrulybelocalized and limited. In fact, protecting what’s inside from undue orcasualoutsideinterferenceisoneoftheprimaryfunctionsofboundaries.Saying that everything is interconnecteddoesnotdistinguishhow it isall interconnected,orwhether some thingsandoccurrenceshavemoreeffect than others, and some perhaps none at all. If the Earth weredestroyed by a large meteor, the sun would probably survive. Theconverseisnottrue.Ifeverythingwereinterconnectedinthewayamobileexemplifies,itwouldbedifficulttohaveroomforhumanfreedom(oranyotherkind)since freedom needs some degree of separation to operate.14 Ourperspectiveviews theverticalandhorizontalasdialecticallyembedded(verticalonlyhasmeaninginrelationtohorizontalandviceversa).Andalthough these papers are challenging authoritarian hierarchies (thevertical)andvalue theconceptofhumanequality (thehorizontal),wedo not do so by trying to abolish or deny the vertical, ormaking thehorizontal superior. Reframing equality and hierarchy dialectically,instead of treating them as if they were mutually exclusive in aneither/orway, isanotherwayofmakinghierarchyatool insteadofanauthoritarianmaster.15SomemodernBuddhisttheoristsusetheconceptofinterconnectednesswithitsseamlesswebofexistencetoshowthatboundariesarereallyan

illusion.Itisnoaccidentthatseamless-webproponentsoftenuseastaticnoun, interconnectedness, which is constructed from a passive verb(interconnected) that has no subject. This allows them to claim thatinterconnectedness does not imply two things, that it contains noseparate elements or components. Whereas interconnecting and theactive verb, connect, raise the question of what elements are actuallyconnecting. This is an unwelcome reminder that individuation andseparation are required for things to connect, so that at some levelboundariesmustbereal.Connectingneeds subjects thatconnectwitheachother. Inorder forconnecting to occur, there be must distinguishable things or systemswith boundaries (however permeable and fluid) that are doing theconnecting. Without boundaries and some degree of separation, it ismeaningless to speak of connecting. That the universe may consist ofhierarchies of interconnecting and overlapping systems whoseboundaries are not fixed does not take away from the fact that eachsystemhasrecognizableboundariesthatdefineitandallowittoconnectwithothersystems.Withoutthistheuniversewouldbeonebigblobofsameness,perhapssimilartotheBuddhistconceptoftheVoid.TheBuddhistVoidpositsultimaterealityasdevoidofdifferentiationand is structurally identical to the concept of Oneness. Buddhismreplaces Hindu maya (“All is illusion”) with “All is change,” makingcontinuity (and thus identity) the illusion. Both change and illusionservethesamefunction—todenytherealityofnormalreality(theworldofindividuatedform).TheprimaryBuddhistagendaofdoingawaywithsuffering is geared at doing awaywith the individual self that suffersthrough creating “unreal” boundaries. Making interconnectedness theultimaterealityintheworldofever-changingformsisanattempttodoaway with subjects that connect (and suffer) as well as with the lessemotionallyappealingtraditionalVoid.Thisisnoneotherthantheage-oldhiddendualismbetweenrealityandillusion,howeverdefined.16If the universe is actively involved in joining (coming together) andseparating (breaking apart), then separation is just as real asinterconnectedness. What this means is that the web of existence hasseams, and the way to solve the problems brought about by self-centeredness cannot come through villainizing or declaring unreal thefactof it.One still is facedwith thesebasic realities: thateating,be it

carrotsorcows,destroysonethingforthegoodoftheother;thatpeopleuse resources, and too many people will destroy the overall supportsystem for everyone; and that like creation and love, destruction andviolenceareapartofthewebofexistence,too.Theoldsymboloftheserpenteatingitstail,Ouroboros,isanimageof

howunityisaprocessthatassimilatesandusesitself.Therealquestionishowthisisdone—thatis,howfartheextensionsofcarego,andwherethelinesofusearedrawn.Theideathatanenlightened,orrealized,orself-expandedbeingneednolongerdrawtheselinesisabsurd,sincethequestionswillalwaysremain:“WhatwillIeat?”and“WhatwillIuseformyownsurvival,benefit,convenience,pleasure,andamusement?”Forbetween cherishing and using (two basic poles of differentiatedexistence),wherearetheboundariesofone’sconsiderationtobe?Howthese questions are answered is crucial, at the collective as well asindividuallevel.Connecting with interconnection can be a powerful and valuable

experience that helps alleviate fear and despair. But making it themagicalkeytothenecessaryconsciousnesstransformationisbutanotherformula thathopespurityof intentionwill solveeverything.Therearethose who even state that unconditional love or compassion is theultimate requisite for survival—theevolutionary leapneeded.Here themore unconditional (selfless) the better. This is really a prescriptionabouthowpeopleoughttobe,whichthenbecomesthemeasureofone’struehumanity.Suchstandardscreateaconceptofpurityandaremerelya disguised form of the old renunciate morality that debases self-centeredness.Theabsolutestandardsitsetsareauthoritarian,creatingahierarchy of value—the more loving, forgiving, or compassionate thebetter.Suchone-sidedformulascannottakeintoaccountthatopennessto connectmay not always be appropriate; that sometimes boundariesandself-protectionareneededandserveacreativefunction.17Onceunityorinterconnectednessismadesacred,acategoryiscreated

that isnot sacred—individuals and their individual concerns.Once thesacred was separated off into a special realm, religions becamerenunciate,with the religions defining bothwhat to renounce and theperceived higher good that doing so brings. The idea of the intrinsicvalue of sacrifice and self-denial is still a part ofmanymodernmoralconceptions,nomatterhowsecularizedtheirveneerhasbecome.

Everymoralitymustdealwith self-centeredness.This includes issuesof personal and group survival, and the asymmetries of power andprivilege which are both genetically and socially constructed. Thespirituality embedded in theOnenessworldview creates lofty ideals ofselfless moral purity that have worked well with authoritarianhierarchies. Hindu ashrams, Tibetan Buddhist monasteries, and Zencenters are all authoritarianhierarchies.Duty, obedience, and sacrificeare the key authoritarian virtuesmaking such hierarchieswork.Whenunity isvaluedoverdiversity,whether itbetheOneovertheManyorthe state over the individual, there are always those higher on thehierarchytodefineforthelowerjustwhatthatunityisandwhatmustbesacrificedforit.

RenunciationasAccumulation

Thatall themajorworldreligionshavearenunciatemoralityseemsatfirst blush a bit odd since these religions all operate within cultureswhereaccumulatingwealth,power,andprestigepositionspeoplehigheron the hierarchy. Accumulating seems to be quite the opposite ofrenouncing.This seeming enigma is understandable if it is seen as theresult of separating thedivine from theearthly:Accumulatingwas theactivity that gotoneahead in the seculardomain; renouncingwas thepaththatgotoneaheadinthespiritual.Oncepeople’sgeneralmodeofthought and behavior became based on the accumulation model, thisinsidiously got applied to everything, including renunciation, wherebyonecouldaccumulatespiritualmeritthroughsacrifice.Renunciation is the mirror image of accumulation, with inverted

(opposite)values,butwiththesamestructure(hierarchical)andprocess(striving), and the samemeasuring, ambitiousmentality. The contents(sacrificingversusacquiring)mayseemopposite,butthisisonlyonthesurfacebecause the formandunderlyingstructureofeach is thesame.Accumulation moralities set up standards of purity which serve tomeasurethequantityofimpurity(self-centeredness).Theymeasurehowmuch sin or how much karma has been accumulated (demerits), andthengivewaysof accumulatingmerits through sacrifice. So ironically,renunciate religions are all based on accruing and stockpiling spiritualmeritandareaccumulativetothecore.This isbutanotherexampleofhow either/or frameworks create reactive oppositions that, in anunconsciousway,bringabouttheverythingtheyaretryingtodoawaywith. The hierarchical split between the sacred and secular breedsauthoritarianism. Actually, authoritarian hierarchies thrive onrenunciation, for this can always justify sacrificing the lower to thehigher.The spiritual path embedded in the Oneness worldview involves

progress upward toward an enlightened state through becoming moreselfless.Thisstateispresentedasthesameforallpeoplewhoreachit,nomatterwheretheyarehistoricallysituated.Apathisaplacewhere

othershavebeenandisarepetitionoftheknown.Seeingspiritualityasa-historical removes it from an evolving universe.Whereas if unity isembedded in itsparts,whicharechangingandevolving, so toowouldhumanspiritualitychange,alongwitheverythingelse.TheOneandtheMany,unityanddiversity,areoppositesonlywhenso framed by either/or thinking. A dialectical framework that ismoreinclusive sees them as interweaving poles within the process ofexistence.18Aviewofbothspiritualityandmoralityisneededthatdoesnot prioritize one pole over the other. Judging as superior the valuesabstractedoutofthemysticalexperienceofOnenessisnotonlyreactive,butitselfisjustmoreeither/or,dualisticconceptualizing—ironicallythevery thing the ideology of Oneness claims it has transcended. Themystical experiencedoesnot endwithunity; it begins there, and thenmustbeintegratedintotheequalrealityofindividuateddailylife.1“The Power of Abstraction: The Sacred Word and the Evolution of Morality” shows thehistoricalstagesoftherelationbetweenreligionandmorality.2“Religion,Cults,and theSpiritualVacuum,”“Satanismand theWorshipof theForbidden,”and“SymbolSystemsandPower”in“ThePowerofAbstraction”furtherdescribethenatureandlimitationsofrenunciatereligion.3“LoveandControl:TheConditionsUnderlyingUnconditionalLove”describes the relationalconflicts resulting fromdoing this.The last three sectionsof “ThePowerofAbstraction” showhowthesecategoriesareembeddedineachother.4“DoYouCreateYourOwnReality?” conciselydescribeshowkarmaworks. The sectionon“Oneness” in “The Power of Abstraction” shows how karma is themoral underpinning of theEasternOnenessworldview.5“Gurus,Psychotherapy,andtheUnconscious”and“TheTrapsofBeingaGuru”showwhyitisnotaneasytask.6ThesectiononBuddhisminControlshowsindetailwhythisisso.7See“FundamentalismandtheNeedforCertainty.”8“ADialecticalApproach to theOneand theMany” in“EastandWest:LookingWithinandLooking Without” (in Control) describes in greater depth the relationship between unity anddiversity.9“BuddhismandtheAbuseofDetachment”and“WhatIsSelflessServiceServing?”(inControl)describeindetailwhyideologiesthatemphasizeunitycannotsolvetheproblemsofindividuatedlife.10“The Assault on Reason” deals more with the nature of paradox. The section onkarma/rebirth in Control shows that the idea of karma could theoretically operate in manydifferentways—andthat thewaychosenbyEasternreligionswasarbitrary,except that itwastheonlywaytoestablisharenunciatemorality.

11“ThePowerofAbstraction”showstherelationbetweenpowerandthefourmainstagesofreligiousabstraction.12ThechapteroncommunisminControl shows that itwasreallyasecularizationof theoldrenunciateethicsofself-sacrifice—anexperimentthatwasthepastdisguisedasthefuture.13“ControlandBoundaries”and“ForgivingandLettingGo”in“LoveandControl”discusstheproblems caused in relationships by unlivable ideals about boundaries. “Looking Within” (inControl)showsopeningandclosingboundariesastwosidesofadialecticalprocess,anddescribestheconfusionscausedbydenyingtheirreality.14“AmIForRealorAmIOnTape?FreewillandDeterminisminKarma”inControlexplainswhyfreedomhasnomeaningwithouttheexistenceofseparateindividuals.15“Freedom and Equality” in Control discusses this more deeply. See also “Authority,Hierarchy,andPower.”16The section on Buddhism in Control carefully examines the Buddhist worldview and itsimplications.17See “Love and Control” for how “lovewithoutmeasure” becomes ameasure of all otherlove.18See “The Power of Abstraction” for more on Oneness and on the authors’ dialecticalframework.

“I

ThePowerofAbstraction:TheSacredWordandtheEvolutionofMoralitynthebeginningwastheWord.”Itisinthespreadingof“theWord,”orwords, that religion gains power. What has given humanity itsevolutionary advantage is using its complex brain to think, remember,andprojectintothefuture.Thinkingisdoneinsymbols(words),whichthrough rules of combination (grammar) bring forth language. Thecapacitytothinkinsymbolsandcommunicatesymbolicallywithotherswastheevolutionarywatershedthatmadehumanshuman.Knowledge is power, but even more basic, language is power. It is

throughwords that culture is created,maintained, and transmitted; sowords are what create the mental alignment that defines a culture’sperception of reality. But more, words move people, igniting emotionwithavisionofpossibility.Themovementofhumanhistory is alwayspreceded by new ideas,which are new constructionswithin language.Human behavior is not separable from the symbols making up theworldview that is its cultural context. The great diversity of humansocial systems compared to those of other social animals is madepossibleonlythroughlanguage.

AbstractionsandPower

Deeply interwoven in the power of language is the ability to abstract.Considerations of the mental capacity to abstract could easily appearremoteandlargelyirrelevant.Butabstractionsnotonlyaffectdailylife,theyareoneofthegreatsourcesofpower.Everyworldviewcontainsitsuniqueabstractionsthatdefineitandnotincidentallyareusedtocontrolpeople. Religions have created the planet’s most powerful, pervasive,andenduring systemsofabstraction—systemsstillat the foundationofthemoralsystemsofevensecularizedsocieties.Thischaptershowshowtheevolutionofabstractionenabledreligionstoincreasecontrolthroughcreatingmore abstractmoralities, and then suggestsways of changingthesymbolsystemtofosteranon-authoritarianapproachtomorality.The common noun “tiger” reigns over all individual tigers by

abstracting out what is perceived to be similar and essential, whileignoringwhateverisviewedasnon-essential(size,coloration,sex,etc.).One philosophical meaning of the verb “to abstract” is to fail to takeaccountof.Soinabstracting,onedoesnottakeaccountofanythingnon-essentialtothemeaningoftheword—thatis,allindividualdifferences.By ignoring differences, abstractions can be more inclusive; the word“animal” ignoresmoredifferencesand ismore inclusive thantheword“tiger.”Tiger,likeeveryothercommonnoun,referstoanabstractclasswhichinthiscasehasconcreteindividualsasmembers.Tousethewordis to be involved in an abstraction, and the ability to do so leveragescontrol and power enormously. One can now ask others to help hunttigersorprotectagainstthem.The discovery of agriculture brought one of the greatest shifts in

humanhistory—thecapacitytoaccumulateandstockpilefood.Thishashad enormous repercussions: It freed people to specialize, that is, toinvolve themselves indifferent activitiesnotdirectly food-related.Thisinturnmadepossibleasurplusof foodandotherobjectsofvaluethatcouldbeaccumulatedandtraded.Whoever“owned,”ormoreproperly,controlled theuseanddistributionof the surplusgreatly leveraged thecapacity to control others. If I have extra food and you don’t have

enough, I can “pay” youwith food to dowhat I want—that is, if I’mstrongenoughtokeepyoufromtakingitawayfromme.Butthen,Icanalso “hire” people to protect me. From here it is just a short step torealizing that hierarchies of power enable one person (or a few) tocontrol increasingly larger numbers of people. With accumulation,hierarchical structures of power became the new social organizingprinciple,withauthoritylocatedatthetop—insteadofinthetraditionsofthegroupasawholeasinearlier,moreegalitarianbands.Increased levels of abstractions are necessary to make hierarchieswork. This is so not only because the concept of hierarchy is itself anabstraction,butalsobecausepeoplehadtobeobjectifiedinordertobetreated modularly—as classes and castes, which are also abstractions.Accumulation brought specialization and with it a major leap in theimportanceofroles.Tothinkofapersonasaroleisanabstraction.Westrongly suspect that hierarchies that placed authority in the hands ofrelatively few people were a fast (and perhaps inevitable) track togreatlyincreasingtheoverallpowerofthespecies.Anelaboratedivisionoflabornecessarilyinvolvescoordinatingthedifferenttasks.Therealsohas to be a way to ensure that each specialty, now needed for theworkings of the social order, is manned long-term. Authoritarianhierarchy,whencoupledwithself-justifyingbeliefsystems,wasprobablytheeasiestandquickestwaytobringthenecessarycohesionandcontroloflarger,morecomplexsocialorders.Thus accumulation spurred the need for greater abstractions, whichnot incidentally increasedthecapacity forgreater leveragingofpower.First of all, one needed to keep track of what one accumulated.Numbers, and later mathematics, enabled people to manipulate veryabstract symbols that could also be used for broader purposes thanaccumulatedgoods.Ageneralcouldsaytohisking,“TowinthiswarIneed2,000more soldiers,” uponwhich theking couldorderup2,000ablebodies.Einsteinthroughmanipulatingveryabstractsymbolscouldconclude that matter and energy (also abstract symbols) aretransformable.Theresulting“atomicage”hasnotonlyleveragedpowerbuthaschangedtheverywaypowercanbeused.One can look at the history of humankind as utilizing ever greaterlevels of abstraction. And correspondingly, needing ever morespecialized experts to interpret and manipulate them—whether in

religion, science, or the stock market. Value is an abstraction. Givingmetals, stones, coins, paper money, credit cards, stocks, and bondssymbolic value is using increasing levels of abstraction to allowmorecomplex forms of exchange. This is anotherway to leverage power.Alawofnatureisanabstraction,asareideasaroundgoodnessandmoralprinciples that govern large classes of human interaction. Rules, likeculturalroles,areabstractions.Thepowerofabstraction lies in this: thegreater theabstraction, thelarger the number and kinds of particulars that can be subsumed andincludedunderit.It’snotsurprisingthenthatreligions,too,gainedandincreasedtheirpowerbycreatingsacredsymbols—mentalconstructionsofthedivine—ofgreaterandgreaterabstraction.Asconstructionsofthedivine became more abstract, they were able to include more of theunknown under their reign, and also to be the foundation for amoreabstractmorality thatcouldcontrol largernumbersofpeople.Moralityneeds some worldview to justify it. The worldview needs to includeexplanationsofwhythingsarethiswayinsteadofthat,andwhypeopleshould take themorality seriously.Ashuman interactionbecamemorecomplex, the worldview correspondingly needed to become moreabstracttohandlethecomplexities.Religions are the oldest, most conservative, and enduring symbolsystems on the planet. Their myths, archetypes, and moral codes aredeeplyembeddedinculture.Nomatterhowsecularasocietyappears,itsreligiousheritagestill influences itsworldviewandvalues.Wheneverapredominant religion begins to lose authority, this foreshadows deepchanges in human history.What ensues is a struggle between the oldandthenewforcontrolofthesymbolsystem—betweenfundamentalists,revisionists, secularists, and differing visionaries. Such strugglescommonlywereplayedoutovercenturies.1This chapter is a broad portrayal of the evolution of abstraction inreligion and its effect on social control. It focuses only on what weconsider tobe the fourprimary stages in conceptualizing the spiritual:animism, polytheism, Western monotheism, and Eastern Oneness. Weare not proposing a neat, straight developmental line in thehistory ofreligiousabstraction.Speculationsabouttheactualevolutionofreligiousthoughtaremademurkybyitsantiquity.Thepointisthathigherlevelsof abstraction needed lower levels to spring from, since they couldn’t

have come full bloom with the initial evolution of the human brain.Einstein’sformulationthatplacedbothmatterandenergyintothesamecategoryisahigherlevelofabstractionthanwaspreviouslyconceived.Inorderforhimtodothis,theabstractideasofbothmatterandenergyhad to have already been constructed. Similarly, before monotheismcouldhavebeenimagined,polytheisticgodshadtohavebeeninplacein the humanmind. This does notmean the stages delineated alwaysfollowanexactprogression;lowerlevelsofabstractionneednotevolve,andalevelcanbeskippedthroughcontactwithahigherone.Abriefdefinitionofeachstage:

1.Animismseesindividualspiritsembeddedinnature’sforcesandobjectstowhereallofnatureisinsomesensealiveandpregnantwithintent.2Thespiritsorwillfulagentsarethought actually to be part of the wind, tree, mountain, fire, bear, etc. Tribal orshamanistic“naturereligions”evennowhaveananimisticflavor.

2.Polytheismpositsmanyspiritsorgodsthatareahigherorderofnature.Althoughtheyarethoughttocontroloractuponnaturefromasomewhatseparatevantagepoint(atleastcomparedtoanimism),theyarestilldeeplylinkedwithnature.Herethebuddingdualismbetweenspiritandnatureisstillonlypartialandambiguous.(Thisseparationculminated,somewhatdifferently,inmonotheismintheWestandOnenessintheEast.)

3.Monotheismputsforththeideathatthereisoneandonlyoneomnipotent,omniscientGod who is not only the creator and ruler of nature (and everything else), butessentially different from it. Here the dualism separating spirit from nature becomesabsolute.

4.EasternOneness looksat spiritasundifferentiatedandnon-localized.Theunityofallexistence is seen as the true reality. Here the dualism between spirit and nature isbroughtaboutbyeitherviewingnature,matter,andlifeitselfasillusory(maya)orbycreatinglevelsinwhichnatureisalowerorderofreality.

We are not concerned here with themany smaller subsidiary steps,transitions, overlaps, and variations between stages, but rather withdepicting the major stages and their respective moralities. Given theultimate nature of the rewards and punishments promised, religion isone placewhere people are especially prone to hedge their bets. Thismakesitthemostconservativesphereofculture,sowhennewformsaretakenon, theyareoften superimposedonpreexistingones.This isonereasonwhy remnants of animismandpolytheism can still be found inthe current world religions: Judeo-Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, andBuddhism.3

FromAnimismtoPolytheism:TheConcreteAbstractionsofIdolatry

Humans most probably imbued natural forces with intent very earlybecause of the mind’s tendency to seek familiar causes. From there,believingnature’sforcesandobjects(sun,weather,animals,rocks,trees,etc.)containedspiritsisnotagreatleap.Whenunseenforcesorspiritswere thought of as immanent everywhere in nature, therewas little ifanydistinctionbetweenthenaturalandsupernatural.Treespiritswerepartoftrees,awindspiritwaswithintheactualwind,etc.Animismoriginatedwhenpeoplehadrelativelylittlecontroloverand

protectionagainstnature,whosepowerslargelydictatedtherhythmsoflife.Theanimisticworldviewwasaresultofaspecificbalanceofpowerbetweenhumansandotherelementswithinnature.Thewayanimismisconstructed indicates that people saw themselves as an animal amongotheranimals,aforceamongotherforcesthathadtobereckonedwith.Theanimisticworldviewreflectsthatpeoplefelttotallyconnectedwith,partof,andveryvulnerabletonature,havingaweandreverenceforitsmysteriesandpowers.Imputingmotivetonaturalforcesallowsthemtobeinfluencedbyhumanbehavior,whichopenedthedoorwaytotryingto control them through magic and propitiatory acts and rites. Theinterest indoingsowasbecausetheseforces(rain, fire,etc.)hadgreatpoweroverpeople’slives.Itisoursuppositionthatnatureasanabstractideahadnotyetbeen

conceptualizedinearlyanimism,sotocallitnatureworshipwouldbeaprojection of the modern mind. Until nature can be contrasted withsomethingelse,suchascultureorthesupernatural,ithasnoconceptualvalue. It just is what it is—everything. Worship itself also involves amoreconceptualizedattitudetowardthedivineinwhichthesacredistosomedegreeabstractedoutofnatureandmade“Other.”4Whereas later symbols began to represent qualities abstracted from

nature,earlyanimisticsymbolsseemtohavebeenviewedasextensionsofwhatwasdepicted,andthusassharingthesameessenceoridentityas the object itself. For instance, many prehistoric cave paintings of

animals were most probably seen as magically connected with theanimals,justasnamesinsomesenseparticipatedin(ratherthanmerelystood for) their referents’ essence and power. We and others think itlikelythatbothtypesofanimisticsymbolswereconsideredimbuedwithsympathetic magical powers triggered by contact. Drawing an arrowthrough a picture of an animal would aid in killing it; knowingsomething’snamegavesomepoweroverit.5The firstmajor step of religious abstraction turnednature’s invisible“spirit-forces”intogodsbyabstractingthemoutofnature,givingthemform, personality—a separate existence. This led to polytheism, theworldview common to all the early civilizations. The idea came thattherewasaforcebehindthewindthatcreatedallwind;soawindgodwasabstractedout thatruledover thewindbutwasnotnecessarily ineach individual occurrence of wind. The difference between “within”and “behind” could seem like a small distinction, but this shift is thewatershedthatenabledreligiontogenerateworshipandcontrol.Thereisaseminaldifferencebetweentryingtoplacateandcontrolawindgodrather than the wind itself. Once a god is abstracted out, human orsuperhuman traits (including gender) are invariably projected upon it.Nowitsmotivescanbebetterknown.Whoknowswhat thecapriciouswindcaresabout?Butamalewindgodcouldcareaboutwhatmencareabout: sex, virgins, food,wealth, power, adulation. So to gain favor itcan be sacrificed to, and through priests its demands can be madeknown.Thedifferencebetween“behind”and“within”containstheearlyseedsoftheportentousdivisionbetweenthenaturalandthesupernatural,andbetween matter and spirit. Within early polytheism the seeds wereplantedthatsplitthesacredfromtheworldly.Thisinitialmentalprocessof abstracting the sacred from nature was to have enormousramifications—including eventually placing ultimate meaning outsidelifeitself.Thefirstreligiousabstractionscreatinggodsandgoddesseswerequiteconcrete. That is, qualities abstracted out of nature were reified intosacred beings, highly anthropomorphized into human form or animalswith human traits. These were then literally “embodied” in paintingsandsculpture.Oncegivenaparticularform,thegodscouldbelocalized.Thusearlydeitieswere thought to reside incertain sacred locations in

nature,andlater,alsoasidols intheirowntemples.Oncesolocalized,they could be directly approached through offerings, sacrifices, ritual,andworship.Although thegods came to representadifferentorderofexistence, they were still intermixed with nature rather than totallyseparatefromit.Theylivedinnature(earth,sky,water,theunderworld)andmanifestedthemselvesinnaturalevents.Polytheisticgodswerethoughttoactverymuchlikehumans,exceptwith far greater power and exaggerated traits. Projecting specificqualities onto the gods involves a level of abstraction whereby thequalitiesbecomelargerthanlife(asdothegods).Whendeitiesaremadehuman-like, they can display such human qualities as mercy,compassion, pride, anger, vengeance, sexuality, parenthood, etc. Likehumans, theywere sometimes capricious,protective,oruntrustworthy.Theywerealsothoughttocompetewitheachother,ofteninwaysthatwere not particularly scrupulous. These more understandable andapproachable deities are easier to worship, praise, appease, cajole,blame,andsacrifice to.Andimportantly, languagecannowbeusedtoreachthemdirectlythroughprayer,hymns,lamentations,covenants,etc.Herespecialwordsbegintobecomesacred.We focus on the polytheisms of the ancient Near East (Sumer,Mesopotamia,Egypt)wherewritingoriginated.Writingaccelerated theabstracting process, as one could refine and build on previousconstructions.Also thewrittenword is necessary for controlling largernumbers of people through spreading the deities’ orders. Mostpolytheismshaveavastpantheonofgods (more than2,000 inancientEgypt), eachwith itsownpowers, responsibilities, andagendas. In thecontemporary mind, Near Eastern deities formed a landed nobilitywhose temples were powerful, independent economic units—greatestates with sometimes thousands of workers where food and othercommodities were produced and distributed. Humans came to bethought of as having been created for the sole purpose of serving thegods and freeing them frommanual labor.A symbioticmaster/servantrelationship was conceived reflecting the early urban hierarchies. Thegodsdependedonhumanstofulfilltheirveryhuman-likedailyneeds(tobe fed, clothed,bathed, etc.),whilehumansdependedon thegods fortheir personal welfare, as well as the state’s. Nothing could be donewithoutfavorabledivineintervention.Servicebecameaprerequisitefor

thegods’favors.Early polytheistic abstractions had a concreteness that was literal.

Peopleworshipped idols (statues) since thedeitieswerebelieved tobeactually present in them. When there are many gods, giving themdifferent traits is theonlywayofdistinguishingthemfromeachother.Thesetraitscanbepictured;fromtherethepictureorstatueitselfeasilybecomesthevesselforthegod.Idolatryisnotahardsteptotakefromtheearlieranimisticsymbols,paintings,andamulets.Bothwereseenas“real” rather than simply symbolic representations; but while aprehistoriccavepaintingwasthoughttohaveamagicalconnectionwithan actual animal (and later, perhaps, its spirit), an idol embodies anabstraction,anidea(agod),makingtheconceptseemtocomealive.Aseriousdisadvantageof suchconcreteabstractionswas thenecessityofprotecting the idol, for if capturedordestroyed, divineprotectionwaslost,thuscrushingmorale.Theabstractionsofpolytheismgreatly increased therulers’power to

controlpeople, for thekingas thehighpriestwas the intermediary tothegods,or(aswithEgyptianpharaohs)actuallyheldtobedivine.Earlypolytheism began the long process of removing the construction ofsacred abstractions from ordinary people. State religions in whichofficial intermediaries became necessary created a privileged class ofreligiousexperts,guardiansoftheWord,whoalonecouldgivetherightwords with which to approach the gods. They also made known thegods’ wishes and punishments for disobedience. Writing was anexclusive, elite activity of specialistswho deciphered, interpreted (andcreated) the sacred texts.When the sacredWordwaswritten in stone,literally, it could not be easily challenged except by official revisions,also written in stone. Revisions reorganized the pantheon of gods toreflectshiftsinpoliticalpower.Thereligiouselite,incollusionwiththerulers,cametohaveamonopolyoncreatingthereligioussymbolsystem—the basicworldview that dominated all the other symbol systems ofsociety.Sobeganthesymbioticrelationbetweenreligiousandpoliticalpower in which religion justifies the ruler’s right to rule, and rulerslegitimatereligion’srighttojustify.Hierarchism and expansion of secular power were further aided by

newreligiousnotionsofmorality.Inanimisticculturesthesocialcodeisembedded in the group’s ancestral traditions. During the long span of

polytheism,moralitybecameincreasinglygroundedinreligion.Thegodscame to represent abstract moral qualities: goodness, mercy, justice,order, forgiveness, retribution, etc. This was the start of an abstractsystemofethicsthatculminatedintheexistingmajorreligions,wherebytheybecamethebasisofmorality.6When a religion becomes more abstract it also becomes moreprincipled. Different principles compete for ascendancy generating ahierarchy of value. Whose words are to be taken the most seriously?Whichgodsarethemostrighteousorpowerful?Anotherimportantsteptowardgreaterabstractionwas to look for andconceptualizeagreaterpower behind the plethora of gods. In early creation myths a remotepower,often female, set things inmotionwithout further influence.Asmilitarismgrew, the godsoften came tobe seenas createdby amorepowerfulcreatorgodwhoparceledoutpowersandspheresofinfluence.Here, a divine hierarchy of power, not accidentally resembling a kingandhiscourt,restructuredthepolytheisticpantheons.Formillennia,bothgodsandgoddesseshadwide-rangingpowersthatwerenotlimitedbygender.Priestesseswereoftenaspowerfulaspriests,commonlyheadingtemples fordeitiesof theoppositesex.Astheearlystates became more entrenched and powerful, however, male gods,along with male priests and scribes, grew correspondingly moredominant. This hierarchical, centralizing movement in religion ranparallel to kings expanding their power and consolidating whatmanynow call patriarchy. Part of this trend involved the replacement ofpowerfulandindependentgoddessesbynewlydominantmalegods,whodomesticated and demoted them to wives and consorts. This pushtoward the ascendancy ofmale power culminated in the Near East inJudaism’s monotheistic, covertly male God and exclusively malepriesthood.In early animistic cultures, the mystery of female procreation wasmost likely greatly valued and even revered, for it was essential tosurvival.Eventuallyalifeforceorgeneralprincipleofregenerationwasabstracted from natural processes and sacralized. In the earlyagriculturalpolytheisms, fertilitywasthecentralsacredsymbolaroundwhich nature’s cycles, and thus the community’s well-being andprosperity, revolved. Since female procreation and sexuality wereconceptually associated with fertility and fecundity, worship of the

female (in the form of goddesses) was also central to these ancientfertility religions. Regardless ofwomen’s actual power, thismust havegivenwomensomestatusandrespect,whicherodedgraduallywiththeriseofmilitarism.Religion is inherently conservative owing to the fear of offending

unseen powers, and also to the emotional attachment to feelingprotected by traditional deities. This conservatism, along with thearchetypal abstractions of the female as creator of life, nurturer, andsexualigniter,sufficetoexplainwhyfemalereligioussymbols,includinggoddesses, retained popularity while women were increasingly losingsecular status and power. In the emerging urbanmilitaristic societies,womenwereprogressivelymoresubordinate;thelegalcodeseventuallyreducedthemtomaleproperty.Inevitablysymbolssacralizingthemalehierarchy competed with and finally overshadowed the more sexuallyegalitariansymbolsassociatedwithfertility.The movement into greater abstraction is most graphic in the

transformationofcreationmyths.Atfirstcreation,includingthecreationofthecosmos,waslinkedwiththefemaleprinciplebecausetheoverallcapacitytocreatewasliterallyassociatedwiththeactualphysicalactofprocreation,whereanew life seems tocomeoutofnothing.Themalecontributioninpaternitywasnotyetclearlyunderstood,ifknownatall.Since mysterious fertility emanated from the female, not surprisingly,female deities were the dominant figures in the earliest Near Easternmythsoforigin.Whentheconcept“creativity”wasabstractedoutofphysicalprocesses

and made into a separate principle, which of course is a symbolicstructure, the act of creationwas dramatically changedbymaking thementalconceptbothpriortoanddominantoverthephysicalexpression.Thisgavemorecontrolovercreation,makingitactiveinsteadofpassive.ThisbasicshiftisreflectedinasentenceintheBible,“InthebeginningwastheWord.”Creativitywasrelocatedwithinthesymbolsthemselves,making it mental, consciously directed, and broader, instead of amysterious, uncontrollable physical procreative force. Now a malecreatorgodcouldbringforth life,oranything,bymerelywilling itviasymbols.Much has beenwritten about the shifts in the symbols of creativity

from the fertile female and earth (both of which physically do the

creating) to themale. Someknowledgeofpaternitywasaprerequisitefor this shift. Creativity becomes linked to the plow, phallus, seed,semen, etc., stripping the female of significant creative power. Thewomb and the earth are reduced to passive receptacles for the potentseeds(sperm)thatarenowconsideredthesolecarriersofthelifeforce,thespirittoberealized.Later,nolessathinkerthanAristotlepresentedthis view with certainty, which greatly influenced medieval thought.Examples of this shift in religious mythology abound, a prominentexamplebeinginGenesiswhereEveisliterallymadefromman(Adam’srib), and considered secondaryasman’shelpmate. Finally, in theNewTestamentGodisexplicitlycalled“theFather”andmadethecreatorofusall.Abstractingcreativityfromthephysicalwasusednotonlytodemote

the female,butalso todenigrate thebody, sexuality,andnature itself.Theessenceofaperson, including the life force,wasabstractedoutofthehumananimalandthenmadeintoahigherorderofexistence(thesoul). Sexual attraction and the actual act of sex itself (which is, ofcourse, quite animal) become a hindrance to spiritual realization. Theidea of woman as the temptress who causes the “fall ofman” is thusborn.The removal of creativity from nature and sexuality to an abstract

principle occurs in tandemwith the split between the sacred and themundane,whichabstracts spirit fromnature.Ofcourse, theconceptofnature is itself an abstraction that exists only when counterposed toculture, another abstraction. Urbanism exacerbated the conceptualpolarizationbetweencultureandnature,butthiswasgreatlyreinforcedbyabstractingspirit fromnature.Menthencametobeassociatedwithspiritandculture,andwomenwiththeinferiorrealmofmatter,biology,andnature.Thisnewmetaphysical splitwasmadeabsolute inHebrewmonotheismandperpetuatedinChristianityandIslam.Femaledivinityis entirely absent in theChristianTrinity.Medieval Christians debatedwhether women had souls, and even today some Islamic sects claimwomandon’thavesoulsorgotoheaven.Eventhoughtherewasadivisioninpolytheismbetweenhumansand

thegods,betweenthenaturalandsupernatural,thegodswerestillheldtoresideinnature.Theywerenotonlyconceivedasdirectlyoperatingon nature, but also as being constructed out of its forces. They were

portrayed as a higher, separate order of life, but not divorced fromearthlylife.Theycouldpropagate,marry,gethurt,andevensometimesdie. And they were thought to continually intervene in nature and inhuman lives—not only manifesting their powers in nature, but beingsomewhatdependentonhumans themselves.Here theriftbetween thespiritualandworldlywasnotyetabsolute.Thecapacitytoabstractisatoolforunderstandingthegeneralwithinspecificmanifestations.Thisinfactisonemeaningofunderstanding.Abasicfunctionofreligionistoexplainandhelpcontroltheunknown.Asunderstanding of nature increased through utilizing abstractions,religionhadtobecomeevenmoreabstractinordertocontinuetoreignoverthenaturalworld.Themoreoneunderstandsthedynamicsof,say,thunderorthesun,thelesscredibleathunderorsungodbecomesandthelessneedthereisforthem.Religion’seventualanswer tokeepingpower involved separating thecosmosintotwodistinctcategories,thenaturalandthesupernatural,byabstracting the sacred from daily life. (This is not to imply that thissolution was necessarily consciously planned.) From this high level ofabstraction, the untouchability of religious concepts is easier tomaintain. The higher the level of abstraction, the more removed theconcepts are from the concrete vicissitudes of daily life and fromchallengestotheirpresumedimmaculatenature.Oncethesplitbetweenspiritual andmaterial (and consequently religion and nature) becomesabsolute,anychallengetoreligioncanalwaysbedeflectedbyassertingthatthesacredisultimatelyunreachablebymeremundaneknowledge.Asthesacredwascharacterizedbyincreasinglygreaterabstractions,theseparationbetweendivinityandhumansgrewcommensuratelylarger.Inthe West, this culminated in an omnipotent monotheistic God thatbrought an absolute separation between the divine and the world ofhumans,betweenGodandhiscreation.

Monotheism:AUniversalAbstraction

The concept of hierarchy (as every general knows) is essential toaccumulateandmovepower.Oncethegodsthemselveswereorganizedin a hierarchy of power, hierarchies of value (levels of virtue andgoodness)couldflowfromthat.Amoreabstractreligioncouldbecomethe foundation of a needed abstract morality that had the power tocontrol the ever larger numbers of people found in the newly formingstates produced by accumulation and kingship. Secular hierarchiessacralized the morality that justified caste and class systems throughnotionsofpurityandhereditarysuperiority.In the West, monotheism became that next level of religious

abstraction. The Hebrews, by raising their tribal god frommerely thebestgodtotheonlyGod,createdamoreabstractsymbolofuniversalitythat became valid for everyone, thus moving into a new conceptualframe. When in the thirteenth century B.C. Moses forbade worship ofidolsandimages,thisradicalinnovationservedtoprohibittheworshipof other deities, thus strengthening the foundation ofmonotheism. Anincorporeal God with no material form or location had the greatadvantageofestablishingpowerfulbondsbetweenGodanditsfollowersthatcouldnotbebrokenthroughtheftordestructionoficons,defeat,orexile.BymakingGodineffableanddisassociatingitfromallimages,Godas

a symbolwasmadeyetmore abstract and radically different from themore concrete, human-like abstractions of polytheism.This advance inabstraction increased the Hebrews’ perception of their God’s power,whichresultedingreatersocialcontrolemanatingfromGod’sWord.TheTenCommandmentscontainnotonly rules for living,but the first fiveare really demands of submission to God, with punishments fordisobedience—particularly idolatry—going “unto the third and fourthgeneration.” Eventually polytheistic practices faded, althoughthroughouttheOldTestamentawrathfulGodispunishinghiswaywardpeople for idolatry. TheHebrewGod, though “ineffable,” still retained

suchhumanemotionsasanger,vengeance,mercy,andlater(intheNewTestament)evensiredachildwithahuman,asdidpolytheisticgods.Areligiousframeworkisaworldviewwhosepowerisdependentuponoffering a better explanation for the vicissitudes and uncertainties ofliving, and also offering better beliefs and practices for mitigatingagainst them.Monotheism superseded polytheism for the same reasonpolytheismemergedfromanimism.Aspopulationgrew,contactbetweengroups and beliefs was inevitable, as was competition. Greaterabstraction was necessary to deal with more diversity. A quarrelinghierarchy of gods initially better explained quarreling hierarchies ofpeople.Butitsabilitytounitediversepeopleswaslimited.The strength of monotheism lies in its ability to explain existencebetterandmoresimply,andtogiveamorestablefoundationfordealingwith theworld through itsmorality. Basicallymonotheism supplantedpolytheism because its Godwasmore powerful and inclusive, aswerethe more abstract concepts associated with monotheism. Polytheisticcreationmythswerenecessarilyvague,asitwasuncertainjusthowthecreator god or gods could create anything, even themselves. Withmonotheismthecreationmythisbothpowerfulandsimple.Godcreatedeverything because it had the will and power to do so. For this, theabstractconceptofomnipotencewasnecessary.Polytheistic gods must each have traits, identities, and their ownspecial realms of power to be distinguishable from each other.Monotheism created a new concept of power by subsuming all powertraits into one abstract quality, omnipotence. In order to be truly all-powerful,theGodhadtoalsobeall-seeing,omniscient.Also,tobethefinalWord or first cause, it could not have been created by anythingelse;thusithadtobeeternal.Itsdoingshadtoberightbydefinitionsoithadtobethesourceofallvirtue.ItisaroundthequestionofwhetherGod, as the source of everything, is also the source of evil thatmonotheismhasitsgreatestdifficulties.7AllthisraisedGodtoahigherlevelofabstraction,givingitthemostinclusivepowers.The ultimate abstraction of spirit to one principle allowed morehierarchical control. This innovation made the Word of Godunchallengeable.Competinggodsdonothaveabsolutepowertopunishtransgressions.Theyhavecompetingwords, thusobediencecanalwaysbehedgedbyswitchingallegiancetoanothergod,orworshippingmany

atonce.Noonegodcandemandorenforce totalobediencesince theyallhavespecialpowersthatneedtobetakenintoaccount.Omniscienceisalsoagreatpowerforcontrol.Itistheultimateformof“BigBrotheriswatching you,” as itmade people believeGod knew their everymoveand thought. The fear of an inescapable and vengeful God is a newfoundation for psychological control, that is, mind control. Notcoincidentally,greatpowerandauthorityarevestedinthosechosentoensureGod’sWordbeobeyed.Themonotheisticworldviewisauthoritarianatitscore.Ifonethingisall-powerful, theneverythingelse isnotonly lesspowerful,but less inevery way. Raising hierarchy to a new level where all power flowedfromonesourcecouldonlybeaccomplishedbymaking the separationbetweenGodandhumansabsolute.Witheverynewlevelofabstraction,religion was increasingly characterized by human inferiority andobedience in the face of the divine.MakingGod the ultimate force toplease does not promote self-trust. Once self-trust is undermined, thiscreates an “authoritarian personality” that seeks to follow those who“knowbetter.”Thosewhoknowbetter,ofcourse,aretheguardiansandinterpretersofthesacredWord.8Inmaking the dualistic separation betweenGod and everything elseabsolute,monotheism set the stage for hardening other polarities thatwere less firm under polytheism: mind and body, culture and nature,spirit and matter, humans and animals, etc. Monotheism’s power andattractivenesslieinitsveryabsoluteness,whichcreatedunchallengeablerulestoliveby,bringingmoresecurity,certainty,andsocialcohesion.In the West, it is tacitly assumed by many that monotheism was agreat advanceoverpolytheism.Thismaybe true in the sense that theabstractions of monotheism led to changes that are linked with somemeaningsoftheword“progress,”suchasincreasedpower,controloverothers and nature, improved technology, and more complex socialorganization. Whether monotheism ultimately brought actual moralprogress, however, is being seriously challenged by feminist thinkerswholinkmonotheismtomaledomination,andalsobyotherswhoseeitasdisconnectinghumanityfromitsspiritualrelationshipwithnatureandecological concerns. Certainly monotheism has fueled some of thedarkestmomentsinhumanhistory.Examplesarerife:theconquestandslaveryofindigenouspeoples,theInquisition,andevenNazism.

The judgment as to whether or not one worldview offers a moraladvanceoveranothercannotbedivorcedfromthehistoricalcontextofthe competing worldviews. And although comparing differing valuesystemsisfraughtwithdifficulty,wemustacknowledgethatinatleastoneimportantwaymonotheismofferedarealmoraladvance—forthosetimes.Without getting into the knotty problems involved in justifyinganymoralclaims,simplyput,forusamoraladvanceinvolvesashiftincontext whereby people treat each other better. So, for example, acontext that does not permit slavery or human sacrifice is a moraladvanceoveronethatdoes,andisthusbetter.Tocallapersonprincipledisgenerallyacompliment.Whatthisreally

means is that one so considered can be expected to act from a(somewhat)consistentsetofvaluesratherthanonlytheshiftingsandsofself-interest.Suchpeopleareusuallymorepredictable,thustrustworthy.Monotheism,becauseoftheveryabsolutenessofitsauthority,couldsetdownmoralprinciples thatweremore likelytobefollowedthanthoseofitsrivalpolytheism,whichdidnotoffernearlyascoherentanethicalsystem.Inaworldof ethical arbitrariness, theHebrews came tobeadmired

for their strong principles and family and community ideals. The TenCommandments clearly set forth a strong communal code: Thou shallnot lie (bear false witness), steal, kill, commit adultery, covet thyneighbor’swifeorproperty.UntilChristianitycametothefore,Judaismwasaproselytizingreligionspreadingitsmessageandmorality.WiththeHebrew exile in the sixth century B.C., their idea of oneGod began tospreadas theydid.Onereasonsomanyachievedhighpositions in thebureaucracies of the landswhere they settled is the rulers could trustthem. Later this appeal shifted toChristianity,whichwas grounded insimilar moral principles. A personal savior, and eliminating strictHebrewdietaryandcircumcision lawsmade conversion toChristianitymuch more appealing. The victory of Christianity over other thenpopularcultsandmysteryreligionswasensuredwhenConstantinemadeit theofficialreligionof theRomanEmpire.Aprobablereasonfor thischoice was that Christianity offered a reliable set of beliefs andprinciplesthatcouldbeusedtobindhisdisintegrating,decadentempire.Monotheism did put the power of the Word, of religious symbol-

making and abstraction, exclusively in male hands. This resulted in

desacralizing the feminine. The pastoral Hebrews not being veryinvolvedwithagriculture,fertilitywasnotcentrallysacredtothem.Likemost pastoralists, their religion before monotheism was dominated bymale gods. TheHebrew tribal god that eventuallywas elevated to theonly God retained male characteristics. Though made universal andsupposedly ineffable, the God of the Old Testament remains covertlymale. This God speaks almost exclusively to Hebrew men; makescovenantsonlywith them(basedoncircumcision);usesmaleprophetsasintermediaries;andonlyholdsmalesmorallyresponsible.Later,intheChristianTrinitythefemaleisnotonlyabsent,butinnamingGod“theFather,”Godwasofficiallydeclaredmale.Thereisanuncomfortablequestionastowhywomen“wentfor”earlymonotheism—anobviouspatriarchalstructurethatovertlylessenedtheirsymbolicandperceivedworth.Thereareanumberofpossiblehistoricalexplanations, including that theywerenotgivenmuchchoice.WomenunderNearEasternpolytheismhadnotbeenfaringwell—inspiteofthelipservicepaidtoworshippingthefemaleprincipleandgoddesses.Thedeveloping military kingships were hierarchies that used peoplecallously,slaverybeinganexample.Whenorganizedkillingbecamethebottom line of power, the status of women gradually was reduced bycodesandlaws,sothattheirsexualityandprocreativecapacitybecamecommodities to use and abuse. Awoman could be killed for adultery,and rape was exclusively a crime against the woman’s male owner(fatherorhusband).There is a simple hypothesis as towhywomenmight have felt thatpatriarchal monotheism was in their self-interest: under its moreprincipledmoral codes,womenand their childrenwere treatedbetter.Eventhoughtheywerestillmaleproperty,theTenCommandmentsalsopromulgated new family values. Hebrew men became renowned andadmired for protecting their families. Community standards likewiseofferedwomen protection. If beaten, awife could appeal to the rabbiandcommunityonmoralgroundstocensurethehusband;consequentlythere was little wife-beating. The community’s tightly controlledmorality underpinned protecting and taking care of its members. Itsstrong community values, along with the conviction of being God’s“chosen people,” gave Judaism a staying power that is still alive after4,000years.Later,Christ,continuingthisconcernforthedisempowered,

pronouncedmenandwomen’ssoulsequal.EvenIslam,themostsexuallyunequal monotheistic religion, at its inception offered womensignificantlybettertreatmentthantheyweregetting.Monotheism with its abstract God could put forth abstract

unchallengeableprinciplesthatwereuniversallyapplicable.Wethinkitspread inpartbecause itdidofferpeopleavisionofabetter life, andalso because the universal values were a better glue to hold togetherlarger numbers of people. The problem for today is that the veryauthoritarian morality that was the solution of the past now hinderssolutionsforthepresentandfuture.Thesimplistic,dualisticworldviewthatliesunderthewordsofauthorityisnotflexibleenoughtodealwiththe different kinds of moral crises that technology and unconsciousreproductionhavebrought.9There are interesting parallels between the two highest levels of

religiousabstraction,monotheismandOneness.Bothpowerfulconceptshave endured since their inception and are the core of the two oldestcontinuous religions—Judaism and Hinduism; both Brahmins, thehighestHinducaste,andHebrewsconsiderthemselvesthechosenones;andbothJudaicmonotheismandHinduOnenessareacorepartoftheworldviews of subsequent world religions (religions that have crossednationalboundaries).JudaismisthefoundationofChristianity(initiallyaJewishheresy)andIslam;theHinduconceptionofOnenesshasgreatlyinfluencedotherEasternreligionssuchasBuddhismandJainism.

Oneness:TheCulminationofReligiousAbstraction

Oneness, the pinnacle of religious abstraction, is the aspect of EasternthoughttheWestiscurrentlythemostenamoredof.TheearlyVedismoftheAryan invaders thatsuperimposed itselfon indigenous formswasacombinationofpolytheism,ancestorworship,andritualsacrificesimilarto Greek and other Indo-European religions. Later (during the firstmillennium B.C.) the more sophisticated Upanishads put forth theconception of Oneness, the non-duality of all being (advaitism). InHinduism,Vedantaisthemodernexpressionofthis.Thisraisedthelevelof abstraction in Hinduism to where Brahman, The One, actuallyencompasseseverything.Aswithallabstractions,herealldifferencesareignoredandanall-permeatingsamenessgivenultimatereality.However,differences still must be accounted for, even if they are trivialized bycallingthemillusion(maya).Withtheabstractconceptofmaya,whichincludes all differences under the same umbrella (the multiplicity ofexistence), diversity is both accounted for and either denied or madelower.10In this way Hinduism, which is both polytheistic and ostensibly

monistic, found a way to have its cake and eat it, too. (Monism seeseverythingas composedofonebasic substance.)Underneath the staticcategoryofOneness,apolytheisticpantheonofdeitieswasallowedformat lower levels of abstraction. First The One was split into threepersonifications: Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shivathe Destroyer. Creation, preservation, and destruction became theabstractprinciplesunderlyingthe“danceof life.”Andfromthesethreeflowed different manifestations that could also be depictedanthropomorphicallyandworshipped.Manyoftheseweretheprecedingindigenouspolytheisticgods.Herethefemaleprinciplecouldbebroughtinto an essentially patriarchal religion (another allmale trinity) asgoddesseswhowerederivedfromit.Hinduism’sstayingpoweristhatitofferssomethingforeveryone:intellectualsandmysticssubscribetothehighest level of abstraction, Oneness; others get emotional satisfactionfrom rituals and devotion to a personal deity—one of its many

manifestations,ortoaguru.The more abstract a symbol, the larger the range of events it caninclude. The word “fruit” is a more abstract symbol than “orange.”“Nourishment”could includeall foodaswellasotheroccurrences thatmay not have a material referent—love is nourishing. Oneness is anabstraction that reigns over everything by definition, and thus canencompass anything that comes along. Oneness is a higher level ofabstraction thanmonotheism,which has an inherent dualism betweencreator(God)andcreated(everythingelse).Simplyput,monotheismcannot envelopordealwith the conceptoftheunityofallexistence,exceptbydenyingit.ItsGodhastobeseparateand different. Oneness, however, can incorporate all gods, including amonotheistic one. Hindu Oneness can (and does) look upon Christ asanotheravatar(livingmanifestationofthegodhead),andinonestrokeall of Christianity is subsumed within it. Likewise to many Hindus,Buddha ismerelyanothergreatavatar; so to them,Buddhism is reallyanothersectofHinduism.ThisinclusivenessofOnenessthatcanabsorbanything under its banner contrastswith the inherent exclusiveness ofmonotheism—“Thoushalthavenoothergodsbeforeme”;“ThereisnoGodbutAllah.”Asthemostabstractofallreligiousconcepts,Onenessisthereforethemostimpervioustodirectchallenge.Hindu Oneness and the Buddhist Void are essentially the sameabstractioninthatbotharenon-differentiatedandall-pervasive.Buddha,a reformer, aimed at changing themoral structure by eliminating thecastesystemandreplacingtheendlessexclusionaryandexpensiveVedicritualsofearlyHinduismwithrulesforasocialmorality.HinduOnenessaccentuates permanence and so acted as a foundation for perpetuatingthecastesystem.Inreactiontothis,Buddhismemphasizeschange(“Allis flux”). The concept of the Void initially “emptied” Oneness, so tospeak, by stripping away Hinduism’s hefty population of deities andrelatedrituals.ThissimplifiedthemetaphysicsandhighlightedBuddha’smoralreforms.SinceaprimarytenetofBuddhismwasacceptance,andsince the Void can be as inclusive an abstraction as Oneness, asBuddhismspread,ittooincorporatedpreexistinglocaldeitiesandspirits.ThiswasdonebyretainingtheHindumulti-leveledconceptualstructure.(Onenessreignssupremeoverahierarchyofdeitiesthatareexpressionsof it.) In some schools of Buddhism the formless Void, in a similar

fashion, came to contain hierarchical levels of form: deities, spirits,demons,andbodhisattvas.ThoughEasternconceptionsofcosmicunityappearnottobedualistic,thereisahiddendualismintheOnenessworldview.It abstracts out sameness, calling it the only reality, and throws alldifference (multiplicity) into a lesser category. Buddhism’s analogousdualism is between the formless Void and the world of ever-changingforms.TheovertmonotheisticdualismbetweenGodandeverythingelseis replacedbya covert,more sophisticateddualismbetweenunityanddiversity.Inmonotheism,Godishigherandthereforemustbesacrificedto; in the Oneness ideology, unity is higher and so any individualexpression can be likewise sacrificed. Both dualisms justify amoralitythatallowedmorehierarchicalcontrol.11Thereispowerinbeingabletoincorporateonesymbolintoanother.When the level of abstraction that people operate in is no longersatisfyingorcredible,forwhateverreason(oftenbecauseofadvancesinsecularknowledge),thetendencyistolookforastillhigherlevel.Thisis another reasonwhy Eastern religions have gained popularity in theWest—theycontainahigherlevelofreligiousabstractionthatcanbetterincorporate scientificabstractions.Because theconceptofOneness isahigherlevelofabstraction,onceitentersone’sminditisnotunusualtotryto incorporateone’spreviousbeliefswithin it.Therearethosewhowish to link Christ’s message of love with Oneness. And esoteric Sufimysticism attempted to bring Oneness into Islam. (Islam being anextremely doctrinaire dualism, the Sufis had to be esoteric to avoidbeingkilledforblasphemy.)Themore abstract a concept is, themore it generalizes; and at thesame time, it leaves out particulars, sometimes even the particulars oflifeitself.Byabstractingthesacredfromnature,thedifferentreligionsintheir diverse ways made nature low on the hierarchy of importance.Hierarchiesarecomplexorganizationswithasimplepyramidalform.Asreligions cut themselves off from nature, they too became bothconvoluted and simplistic at the same time. Monotheism explainseverything simply as the will of God; Oneness goes even further andwrites differences off as either merely illusion, or at best as a lesserreality that must be transcended. Each then gives elaborate theories,cosmologies, and theologies to justify why its simplistic explanation

shouldbebelieved.Conceptsofspiritualitybecamemoreabstract,movingfromindividual

“spirits” embedded innature to abstractprinciples andpowersbeyondnature. Through manipulating belief in the sacred symbols thatrepresentedthesenewabstractions,greatercontrolover largerareasofhuman behavior was made possible. When human activities becamemore specialized, society needed to be more organized, and in turnneeded justifications for the way it was organized. The hierarchieswithin the emerging systems of sacred symbols mirrored and justifiedthedevelopinghierarchiesofsecularpower.Complex social hierarchies need some kind of internal control

mechanisms, and religions became their source. In the West, it wasobeyingGod’swill and promoting the fear ofGod that kept people inline.Theauthoritariannatureofthemonotheisticworldviewisinherent,for revealed writings are necessarily its basis, laying downunchallengeablerulesofhowto live. Islamicauthoritarianismought tobeobviousgiventheliteralmeaningoftheword“Islam”issubmission(toGod).WhatthisreallymeansissubmissiontothepresumedwordsofGod, the Koran. Judeo-Christianity also puts forth commandments toobeyasthebasisofmorality.12Unlike monotheism, Oneness does not lend itself to a separate

omnipotentauthoritythatdictateshowtobe,sotheauthoritarianmodesinherentinthereligionsthatinstitutionalizedbeliefinOnenessarelessobvious. Their authoritarianism is not in specific rules, but in amoregeneralizedabstract rule that states themore selflessone is thebetter,supportedbyamoreabstractforce,karma,toensurethateverybodygetswhat they deserve. The Oneness worldview requires an in-built forcethatcanmanipulatefearanddesireinordertogeneratetherenunciatemoral system necessary to inculcate “voluntary” self-sacrifice. Theabstractideaofkarmafitsthisneedadmirably.13Eastern religions transformed divine retribution and reward into an

impersonal universal law. So in the East, karma became the abstractprinciple underlying all activity that justified theway the social orderwas organized. Given that virtue and vice do not always display therequisite results in a given life, they had to accumulate on a cosmicledgeracross lifetimes,determining future lives.Karmaalsoactedasabridge to the very abstract goal of escaping thewheel of individuated

existencesoastobeatOnewiththecosmos.Itssimpleformulais:thelessoneresistsone’skarma,thelesskarmaonegenerates,andthebetteroffonewillbe.All the surviving major world religions base their ultimate rewardsand punishments on some kind of continuity after life. For divineretribution towork it is necessary to abstract something from life thatcontinuesafterdeath.Whereasmonotheismmakesone’s earthly lifeofsecondaryimportancetotheafterlife,Easternreligiondeniesitsultimatereality.Theluxuryofshiftingattentionfromsurvivalonearthtoafter-death considerations was made possible by the power of abstraction,whichgavehumanitymorecontroloverlife.Abstractions are products of thought that may or may not refer tosomethingother than thought.Whether the ideaof karma refers to anactualobjectiveprincipleor forceunderlyingthewayhumanexistenceisstructuredcanbedebated.Anabstractmorallawwithintrinsicpowertorewardandpunishcanseemmoreplausibletothemodernmindthanan anthropomorphic God. It is certainly much harder to question.14Whatisnotmootisthattheconceptofkarmabecameoneofthemostpowerfulcontrollersofhumanbehaviorthisplanethaseverknown.Therelentless, impersonal law of karma functions like an omniscient God,recordingandjudgingeveryaction.Whencoupledwith ideasofpurityandselflessness,bothofwhicharealsoabstractions,arenunciatemoralsystemofgreatpowerwascreated.15Theproblemswithabstractingunityfromdiversitycomewhenunityisgivenmorevalueandmore reality than individuated life.Unityandmultiplicity (the One and the Many) are two sides of a dialecticalprocess that need each other to be at all—neither has priority.16 Self-centeredness and selflessness are also embedded in each other. Amoralitythatequatesvirtuewithselflessbehaviorcanhavegreatcontrolover human action, but it cannot eliminate the self-centered. Instead,self-centeredbehaviormerelybecomesorganizedaroundwhatissociallyacceptable or displays itself unconsciously. The state of theworld is atestamenttothefailureofrenunciatevaluestodealsuccessfullywiththecoreissueofself-centeredness.17

Abstraction,Either/OrThinking,andDualism

Thereisanincreasingawarenessofthelimitsoflinearthinking.Linearthought goes in a straight line from cause to effect, or from acceptedpremises toa conclusionat leastpartiallydeterminedby thepremises.Two-valued, either/or thinking is an integral part of linear thought.Dualism,theabstractionthatstandsbehindeither/orthinking,referstosplitting thecosmos, reality, existence—whateveryouwant tocall it—into two distinct and mutually exclusive categories. Monotheism’sdivisionbetweenthecreatorandcreationisanabsolutedualism.Otherexamplesare the spiritual and theworldly, reality and illusion,matterand spirit, etc. In dividing reality into separate binary categories,dualismproducesmore either/or thinking. It is either/or thinking thatplaces the following in opposition: selfishness versus care; need versuslove; and on a more abstract level, egotism versus altruism andpermanence versus change. Other classical dualistic categories aremind/body, nature/culture, good/evil, insider/outsider, subject/object,higher/lower, reason/emotion, selfless/selfish, masculine/feminine,objective/subjective,etc.After creating these separate categories, what inevitably follows—

owing to the inbuilt nature of preference—is valuing one side of thepolarityovertheother.Thiseither/orstructuringlendsitselftoasimplemoralitywheregoodandbad,theselflessandtheselfish,aredividedinanabsoluteway.Thencomesthemistakencorollary:bysuppressingonesideof thepolarity (thesupposedbad,wrong,or lessvaluedside), theother, more desired side is automatically enhanced. This unavoidablyleadstotryingtogetridofordenythesidethathasbeenvillainized.Itmaybethatthehumanbrain,becauseofthewayitisconstructed,

hasaneasiertimethinkingineither/orcategories,orthistendencymaybedeeply,culturallyrooted—orboth.Probablywhenhumanitybegantorealizethepower inabstractionthroughusingsymbolsviawritingandnumbers, dualistic categories and either/or thinking increased. Inmanipulatingsymbols,themoresharplydefinedacategoryis,theeasierit is to deal with. This is especially true when dealing with numbers.

Numbers lend themselves to either/or conceptualizing: I either havethree coins or I do not have three coins—I have two or five or none.There is no intermediary or ambiguous state. We also suspect thatcultureswithoutwritingabstractless,andthatwhatevercategoriestheymakewouldtendtobelessovertlydualistic.It is important to understand how the clear-cut separations, rigidboundaries, and often artificial polarizations created by two-valued,binary thinking easily fuel and reinforce authoritarianism. Either/orconceptualizing makes it much easier to organize and control people.Authoritarianism depends on such oppositions as: “Do this, not that”;“Thisisrightandthat’swrong”;and“I’mhere,andyou,theauthority,are up there.” Good and evil as separate, distinct, abstract categoriesmade it still easier to control people. A dualistic morality where theconcepts of good and evil, or selfless and selfish, are internalized,coupledwithanomniscientGodorabstractprinciple(karma)that“sees”everyact,shiftscontroltointernalmechanismssuchasfearandguilt.18Whenonesideofadualismisvaluedmorethantheother,orthoughtof as superior or higher (howeverdefined), this sets up ahierarchyofvalue. Dualistic thinking lends itself to hierarchy because when theseparation between “this person” and “that person” is made absolute,theycanbemoreeasilyplacedondifferentrungs.Hierarchiesofvaluebased upon such constructions as purity (the caste system) or nobility(kingshipsystems)justifiedauthoritarianhierarchies.Authoritarian hierarchy was the fast track to using others. Humansthemselves became a resource to use, accumulate, and reproduce.Anyrulerwhodidnotjumponthisbandwagonwasswallowedbythosewhodid.TheabstractconceptofpurityintheEastbecameoneofhierarchy’smost powerful justifications. The idea of purity originally came fromcleansing and purification rites done as preparation for rituals. Lateronly an elitewas allowed to perform certain rites; still later, the elitetookontheattributeofbeingmorepurebybirth.Whenpuritybecamean abstract quality it could be possessed, rather than only createdthrough concrete purification rites. Purity itself became a hierarchicalconceptinthatapersonwasconsideredmoreorlesspure.Thisservedtohardenhereditaryaristocraticbloodlinesandclassboundaries,keepingthelevelsofpowerdistinctandalso“pure.”Either/orthinkinglentitselfsuperbly to this: one is either aBrahmin or anUntouchable, free or a

slave,anobleoraserf.Therearethosetodaywhochallengedualisticthinking.Theyseehowsuch conceptualizing has been used to justify great inequities byasserting, “I’m this (superior) and you’re that (something less)—andthese differences between us are natural; thus different status iswarranted.”Someecologistsrightlylinktheculture/naturedualismwithcivilization’salienationfromnatureandexploitativeabuseofit.In examining the limitations of both either/or thinking and thedualisticcategoriesthatunderlieit,wearenotsuggestingtheycouldorshouldbedoneawaywith.Doingsowouldmerelybedualisminanotherguise.Reactiveattemptstodoawaywitheither/orthinkingbyopposingit to “holistic thought,” making the latter superior, just create yetanother opposition. Dualistic conceptualizing can increaseunderstanding, help clarify, and is appropriate and useful in manydomainsthatlendthemselvestothinkinginhardcategories.Anexampleis computer technology which builds on the binary “on” or “off” ofswitches. The fact is that either/or thinking makes abstracting easier.Theproblem isnotdualisticabstractions,buthowandwhere theyareused.Justasthereareareaswhereeither/orthinkingworkswell,thereare areas where it creates false or limiting oppositions. Althougheither/orthinkingisnotwronginitself,insomeofthemostimportantarenasoflifeitisinappropriateandevenharmful.When applied to morality, it is this binary or dualistic “either/or”modethatdistortspeople’sperceptionsoftheworldandofthemselves.Theensuingattemptstoactuponthesedistortionsareatthecoreofthemoral dilemmas now unraveling the social order, worldwide.Withoutthereactivenessthatisacomponentofeither/orthinking,onewouldbebetterabletoperceiveanddealwiththerealityofself-centerednessinapragmaticandbeneficialway.Instead,thevalueandeventhenecessityof self-centeredness are negated. To the extent that this moralconditioningtakesholdinus,wespendourlivesstrugglingagainstthatpartofourselves(the“selfish”)thatwehavebeenconditionedtobelieveweandtheworldwouldbebetteroffwithout(orwithlessof).Ontheother hand, the positive and necessary aspects of self-centerednessrelated to creativityand individuationareoverlookedbyourmorality,which leaves people divided and confused in themselves. This is whymany who have never even imagined ridding themselves of self-

centerednessneverthelesshavenot foundawayto integrate itwithoutguilt—which is onemore sign of how deeply conditioned our usuallyunconsciousattitudestowarditare.Theguiltandfrustrationthatresultfromattemptingtoridoneselfof

self-centeredness (which is impossible) ironically create more self-absorption—whichhasnothing todowith caringaboutothers—and isitself literally self-centered. This creates a self-absorbing vicious circle,for most guilt can be traced back to guilt about being self-centered.Either/or thinking creates various types of reactions. For example, the“mefirst”attitudesmuchinevidencethesedays(wecallittheAynRandsyndrome) react against puritanical, selfless values by embracing self-centeredness as the “real truth.” This is a way of giving peoplepermission to “go for it” (self-enhancement)withoutholdingback.Butbeing an either/or reaction (which all pendulum swings are), it alsomistakesoneaspectof theperson for thewhole. Ifwewere instead toacknowledge the reality of self-centeredness, along with the reality ofcare and love for others, we would be able to focus more onappropriatelybalancingthetwo,bothinourownlivesandinoursocialsystems.19Eastern spiritual traditions have correctly intuited the serious

limitationsof linear thought in termsof itsbeing insufficient forotherkinds of awareness. But, given this, they have largely concluded thatthought itself is the big hindrance to higher realms of consciousness.Theirensuingvillainizationofthoughtis,ironically,arevealingexampleof linear, either/or thinking. The mistake is to assume linear thoughtrepresentsallthought.TheEasternmethodologythusinvolvesnegatingthoughttotranscendit,withoutarecognitionofthedangersinvolvedindisarming one’s critical faculties. Authoritarianism depends on such“mental disarmament,” which reinforces its capacity to control peopleemotionally throughmanipulating fear, desire, surrender, etc. This is agraveflawinEasternperspectives.Sincethoughtcannotbeeliminated,devaluingitmainlyleadstopoor

and uncritically naive thinking—and ultimately to moreunconsciousness, as opposed to greater awareness. What makes usuniquely human is our capacity to use thought not only as a tool forproblem-solving, but as a structure-builder that allows us to integrateour experience in creative and self-reflecting ways. “What are the

limitationsof thought?”canonlybeaskedbyabeing that thinks. It isaltogether possible that the limitations of thought as a tool for insightareverydifferentfromwhatourhistoryhasuptothispointdisplayed.Theideathatweasaspecieshavealreadypushedthoughttoitslimitisitself a very limited, and in a sense arrogant, perspective—especiallygiventhathumanity’smentalcapacitieshavebeendrasticallylimitedbyitsauthoritarianconditioning.Sincemuchofhistoryisaproductofeither/orthinking,whathasnotbeen sufficiently realized is that the binary mode is just one mode—albeit the easiest to access. Its predominance is in part due to thedualistic moral structures of renunciate religions. Renunciation isdualistic by nature, for there must be something to renounce, andsomething to gain from doing so.20 Binary thought has been furtherprogrammed and reinforced in us by our hierarchical institutions thatuseittojustifyprivilege.Thejustificationofprivilegealwayshasasitsfoundation“I’mthisandyou’rethat.”

SymbolSystemsandPower

Powerwithinacultureisdirectlyrelatedtowhocreatesandcontrolsitssymbolsystems.Throughouthistoryabstractionshavebeenconsciouslyorunconsciouslyusedbythosewhocreatedthemtosupporttheirself-interest and justify their privileges. Although killing and physicalcoercionarethebaselineofpowerofpoliticalhierarchies,theirthreatisnot enough for long-term continuity.Using fear andpunishment alonelimittheeffectivenessandproductivityofpeople,whowillworktotheleveloffearabatementandnomore.Also,suchsystemsaresusceptibletobeing takenover. Ifactual rewardsareslim, theremustbebelief insome future reward. Authoritarian hierarchies that have lastedconstructedsymbolsystemsthatusedreligiousauthoritytojustifypowerandgivepeoplehopeafterdeath.Also,thismollifiesthoseontopwhousually prefer not to face, or be reminded, that those beloware beingusedarbitrarily.Renunciatemoralitiesthatglorifyspiritmakeeasytheuseandabuse

ofanythingmerelyworldly(includinglifeitself)forthesakeofso-calledhigher concerns. This is done through the creation, elevation,celebration, and sacralization of a key abstraction—sacrifice. Earlysacrificewasconcrete,involvingmaterialobjectssuchasfood,animals,andevenpeople.Justaspuritywasmadeabstract,sotoowassacrifice.It changed from a way of appeasing the gods through offerings to amoral imperative which boiled down to self-sacrifice. This in turnexpandedthemoralsystemfromobeyingspecificrules,suchastheTenCommandments, to an overall prioritizing of renunciation, instilling anewmentality.Self-sacrifice isabstractbecausewhat is involved isnotany specific act of sacrifice, but rather a generalized way to be.Renunciatemoralitieslendthemselvesadmirablytoauthoritariansocialhierarchies that leverage power by sacrificing those lower on thehierarchy.Wheneverpossiblethisisdonebygettingpeopletosacrificethemselves voluntarily through inculcating the authoritarian virtues ofunquestioningduty,loyalty,andobedience.Thesevirtuesarealsomadeabstract,asitisnotaspecificdutythatislauded,butdutyingeneral.

Our survival as a species now depends on our using what we have(including ourselves and eachother)more awarely and care-fully. Thesymbolsystemsoftherenunciatemoralitiesthathierarchicallyleveragedhuman power through turning “difference” into institutionalizeddominance and subordination are no longer viable in dealing with aworldof limit.The sacrificeof themany to the few thataccumulationcultures have required is now counter-productive. This is because thehierarchical, authoritarian moralities that demand sacrifice can do soonlybyblockingtheintelligence,self-trust,andcareneededforsurvival.Thisishistoricallynewbecausetechnologyhasleveragedhumanpowerbeyondplanetaryecosystems’abilitytocorrecthumanabuse.If it is inherent in the scheme of things that human beings need amoralorderbasedonauthoritarianbeliefsthatusefearofretributionasthe basic reason for treating others with decency, our chances forsurvival are slim. Ifpromulgating self-mistrust isnecessary tohold thedestructive aspects of self-centeredness in check, as authoritarianmoralities all do, then we will remain children, unable to handleintelligentlythepowerthatourclevernesshasgivenus.Theoldsymbolsystemsthatarestilloperativewereconstructedwhenhumanitymovedintoitsaccumulationstage,whenunlimitedresourceswereagiven.Thereseemedtobenoendtowhatcouldbeaccumulated.Authoritarian hierarchies and the renunciate moralities that proppedthem up were part of the old control mechanisms that could buildpyramids and complex civilizations, and support leaders whoseaccumulating ambitions were so large that they wanted to rule theworld.Hitlerwasjustthemostrecentexampleofthis.21Technology has brought about a basic shift to where resources arelimited,killingateveryleveliseasy,andthesymbolsystemsthatheldviolencesomewhatincheckareincreasinglyhardertobelieve.Thisisashiftfromaplanetofabundancetooneoflimit,whichincludesthelimitof the planet itself to tolerate the pollutions from uncheckedaccumulation. It is this watershed change that has brought about thenecessityofsomekindofparadigmshift,whichreallymeansashift inthe symbol system and its relation to power.Whatever form the newsymbol system takes, it must include a shift from accumulation topreservation, fromexploitation tocare,and fromotherworldlyhope tohopeinthisworld.

TransformingtheSymbolSystem:ADialecticalPerspective

Thereismostprobablyanaspectoftheuniversethatoperatesthroughatension between poles or oppositions. Some examples are permanenceand change, buildup and breakdown, creation and destruction, livingand dying, order and chaos, freedom and fate. On the physical levelthere are negative and positive charges in sub-atomic particles; insocietiesthereisthetensionbetweenequalityanddifferentexpressionsofpower; andon theevolutionary level there is the interplaybetweencompetitionandcooperation.Giventhis, it’seasytothinkdualistically,because oppositions are themost apparent aspect of the universe andthus the easiest to perceive. The limits of dualistic thinking lie inexcludingotherwaysofstructuringexperience.Boththepossibleunitybehindseemingoppositionandthedialecticalrelationshipbetweenthetwo poles are harder to grasp and require more sophisticatedabstractions and mental processes than dualistic either/or thinkingaffords.Fortunately, human intelligence is capable of other kinds of mental

integration, because there are processes especially important in thehuman arena that linear either/or conceptualizing cannot capture.Either/or thinking is one particular form, which is pragmaticallyappropriate to those aspects of experience that most conform to it.Trying to squeeze processes that do not fit a binarymode into binarythoughtmustdistortthem.Whathashistoricallybeencalleddialecticalthinking is anotherway thought can operate that better envisions theworkingsofrelationalprocesses.Whereas binary, either/or thinking is based on each side of an

opposition being static and separate, dialectical thinking is process-orientedandseesthatwithinoppositionsthereisamovementorgrowthtoward more inclusion that can contain both sides. A dialecticalperspective can express the dynamic connection of seeming oppositesandisneededtoperceivetwointerrelatedpartsofawhole.Eachsideisnotonly totallynecessary for theother toexistatall,but isalsooften

embeddedintheother.Livinganddyingareembeddedineachother,asarecontrolandsurrender.Throughsurrenderingcontroltoanideology,one can gain control of one’s emotions. Attachment and detachmentwork similarly. By becoming attached to one person or idea, onedetachesfromothers,andsoisnolongercontrolledbythem.Eventheideology that glorifies detachment brings hidden attachments to theideology itself, and to the emotional control that detachment brings.Surrender brings attachment towhatever is surrendered to and to thepowerfulfeelingsitarouses.22The dialectical relationship between competition and cooperationserves as an excellent example of our perspective on dialectics. Theemotional confusion that many feel around competition comes fromtreatingcompetition/cooperationasmerelyoppositesinsteadofaspolesofadialecticalinterweave.Itiseasyandcommontofavorcooperationmorally, while at the same time emotionally applauding and beingattractedto“winners.”Competitioncanbelookeduponasfeedingself-centeredness through creatingboundaries and separation. It is possibletofocusontheaggressivenatureofcompetition,forvictoryisdependenton the other’s defeat. Yet finding examples of pure cooperation not“tainted” by competition is difficult indeed. Good teams cooperate inordertocompetebetter,whetherinsportsorcorporations.Let’s look at an example of an activity that on the surface appearscompetition-free. A group of people get together for a barn-raising tohelpaneighbor.Thedifficulty in seeingwhere thecompetition in thislies is an indication of how so many of our actions are seen through“speciesblinders.”Thefactisthatthebarn-buildingdestroysthehomes,andoften lives,ofall theotherspecies thatwereoccupying thatspaceand vicinity. Here human cooperation levers the already greatcompetitiveedgewehaveoverotherspecies.There is a new paradigm in business that values playing win/wininstead of win/lose. Among peers this may work well. But it is sadlynaivewhenthehavesof theworldfeelmorallyrighteousbecausetheyareplayingwin/winwitheachother,without taking intoaccounthowtheir mutual victory is affecting the world’s have-nots. The ability toplaywin/winisaprivilege.Youhavetohavesomethingtooffertoenterthegame,orelseitwouldn’tbewin/win.Thisisnottonegatethevalueor progress of thewin/win paradigm. It is simply another example of

how cooperation at one level most often contains competition atanother.Ifonevaluescooperationovercompetition,thenitisveryeasytoremainunconsciousofthecompetitiveelement.Competition and cooperation are two interwoven poles of anevolutionarydynamicthatbringsforthchange.Competitionisahoningandrefiningmechanismbuiltintoevolutionwhichpushesagainstlimits,acceleratingskill,novelty,andbeauty.Theharmonywithincooperationisobvious.Thereisalsoalessacknowledgedandlaudedharmonyintheinterplay of competition/cooperation that, if seen, creates a broaderframeworkwhich can eliminatemanyof our unconscious and reactiveattitudes. Ifwhatwe need to survive ismore consciousness, notmoreunconsciousness(whichpolarizingreactionscreate),thenweneedtoseeclearlythenatureofourcompetitivenesssothatwecanutilizeitwhereappropriate,andtemperitwhereitisdestructive.At first glance competition appears to stem from self-centeredness,while cooperation appears more selfless. We say “appears” because ifcooperationdidnotofferanypersonalbenefits, therewouldbefarlessof it. Cooperation can increase personal power, wealth, praise, andsecurity. Cooperatively participating in something larger than oneselffills important needs related to being a social animal. Likewise, “Giveandyeshallreceivetenfold”isafarmoreappealingmessagethan“Giveandyouwillgetnothingbackinreturn.”Ignoringthedialectical interrelationshipbetweentheselflessandtheself-centered, altruism and egotism, lies at the heart of many moralconfusions and dilemmas. This creates what we call the “spiritualparadox,” which can be stated as follows: It is self-centeredness thatkeeps one from higher spiritual realizations, heaven, a better nextlifetime (reincarnation),whatever. Sobyworking at riddingoneself ofself-centeredness,one’sspiritualgoalsareachieved.Theparadoxliesinthe fact that having one’s own spiritual advancement as the focus ofone’s life is totally self-absorbed, and hence self-centered at a morehidden level. Religion’s glorification of spiritual rewards basicallypresents them as more sublime pleasures. The desire for pleasure, nomatterhowexalted,isself-centered.An early school of Buddhism had, in a surfaceway, seen the aboveparadox; “the bodhisattva’s vow” is an attempt to resolve theincongruity.“Bodhisattva”isthedesignationthatwasoriginallygivento

a being who was considered to be well along the path toward“enlightenment” (Buddhahood or nirvana). (Nowadays the meaning islooser in that the vow is often taken by people as a sign of givingpriority to selfless dedication to others.) The vow takes this form: “Iforsakemyownenlightenmentandwillonlyworkfortheenlightenmentofothersuntilallbeingsbecomeenlightened.”Here the attempt is to do away with the spiritual paradox by

becomingevenmoreselfless—soselflessthatone’sownenlightenmentissacrificed. This vowdoes not address the complexity anddepth of theissue of self-centeredness, nor solve it. The simple solution given isquantitative—becomeevenmoreselfless.This,however,createsanotherparadox: how can you help others work toward something(enlightenment) if you don’t know what it is? One must either haveimagesofwhatthisyetunknownstateis,ortakethewordofsomeonepresumedtobeenlightenedastowhat“thework”shouldbe. Ineitherinstance,it isanexternalauthority(ateacherortradition)thatdefinesthe proper path. There is also a secret message and agenda in thebodhisattva’svowwhichis:ifonewereonlyabletotallytoliveuptothevow,thenonewouldbeenlightened.Forlivinguptothevow,whichispresented as the ultimate in selflessness, makes you deserving ofenlightenment.23Viewing theselflessandself-centeredasdialecticallyembeddeddoes

notdoawaywithmoraldilemmas,butitdoeschangethewaytheyaredealt with. Internalizing dualistic renunciatemoralities has created aninnerconflictbetweena“good”(selfless)partanda“bad”(self-centered,carnal) part. This is at the root of self-mistrust, for one can never begoodenough.24The dialectical perspective offered here is notmerely an intellectual

romp.Itisawayofraisingthelevelofabstraction,enablingone’spointof viewing to be more inclusive. It does not separate process fromcontent, and thus takes movement into account rather than reifyingabstractions into static, separate entities. Viewing dialecticallyindividuationandmerging, the closingandopeningofboundaries, theself-centeredandtheselfless,andmultiplicityandunitycanbringadeepshift inthehumanpsyche—ifthis levelofdiscoursedoesindeedbetterfit theway thingswork. One very good reason for thinking things doworkthiswayisthatitexplainswhyattemptingtoeliminateonesideof

apolarityhasneverworked.The seeming oppositions listed above (and others, too), whenconceivedonlywithinaneither/orframework,depictauniversewhereeachsideofthepolaritystruggleswiththeotherforascendancy.Sothemoreselflessoneis,thelessself-centered(andviceversa).Thishasbeenthebasisofall renunciatemoralities.Theconcepts “selfless”and“self-centered”arebothabstractions,astheyeachabstractoutonlyanaspectofawholelivingperson.Theyarebothabstractionsthathavemeaningonlyinrelationtotheother.Touseametaphorfromperceptualgestalttheory,theyarelikefigureandgroundforeachother,andsoeachneedstheothertoexistatall.Perhaps the most basic polarity is between unity and diversity, theOne and the Many. The animistic worldview did not have theabstractions to separate them. Polytheism gloried in diversity,populating its world with a multitude of powers. MonotheismconstructedaharddualismbetweentheOne(God)andtheMany(God’screation). And finally, the ideology of Oneness conceived the idea ofunity by abstracting it from diversity; it then valued only that polethroughmakingitmorereal.Viewingunityanddiversityasdialecticallyembeddedisamoreinclusiveabstractionthatgivesasmuchimportanceto individualsas itdoes to theirparticipation inthewhole. Itcangivesupport to both the selfless and self-centered, seeing them asinterdependentpolesinthefabricofexistence.Dialectical conceptualizing may appear more difficult, partiallybecauseitisdifferentfromtheusualwaythemindistrainedtothink.Itis more demanding, as it involves an alertness to an ever-changingcontext. The seeming simplicity of the binary mode is a product ofartificiallyslicingreality in two.Theensuingdistortionsare the legacythatwemustbegintounravel.Dualisticthinkingsimplifieslifebecauseitpermitstheconstructionofrulesforbehaviorthatcanbelearnedbyrote and mechanically followed—“This is good, and that’s bad.” Amorality isnowneeded thatcan take intoaccount the interplayof thealtruisticandtheegoistic,withoutrelegatingthelatterintotheshadowofsin.Foritisthisoutmodedeither/ormoralitythatisnowcastingitsshadowovertheworld.A prerequisite for real change is a vision for the future that is notmerely a reshuffling of old forms. This can only occur through

alternativeconstructionsoftheWordcomingfromaprocessthatisnotauthoritarian.Foronlybyreframingthesymbolsystemandthevaluesitgeneratescantheviewofpossibilityalsochange.Theoldorderdoesnotrelinquish control of the symbol system easily, for to do so is to cedecontrolitself.Weviewtherealstruggletodayasinvolvingwhocontrolsthe Word. What’s at stake is not only the shape of the future, butwhethertherewillbeafutureforhumanityatall.1“Fundamentalism and the Need for Certainty” covers the inherent tension within religion

betweentheoldandthenew.2Theword“animism”isderivedfromtheLatinanima,meaningspirit.3In this we would include a spectrum of non-material entities with various supernatural

powers,includinggods,goddesses,angels,demons,devils,spirits,saints,bodhisattvas,etc.4See“SatanismandtheWorshipoftheForbidden”onthelinkbetweenworshipandpower.5ThechapteronanimisminControlcoversitinmoredetail.6Thesection“TheRootsofAuthoritarianism”inControldescribesthisprogressiveethicizingof

religion.7See“TheProblemofEvil”in“Satanism.”8Also see “Religion, Cults, and the Spiritual Vacuum” on the relation of religion to social

hierarchy.9“Fundamentalism” shows how protecting God’s Word has become a form of “ideological

uncaringness”moreconcernedwithmaintaininganideologythanwiththeideology’seffectonpeople.10See“Oneness,Enlightenment,andtheMysticalExperience.”11See“Oneness,Enlightenment,andtheMysticalExperience”onthisandonwhypantheism,

anon-dualisticWesternconceptionthatseesGodaseverything,wasnotadaptablebyrenunciatereligion, as it doesnot lend itself to justifying a renunciatemorality. “TheHiddenDualism inOneness” in “Buddhism and the Abuse of Detachment” (in Control) also describes Easterndualism.12“Good and Evil” in “Satanism” describes the nature of the renunciate dualistic morality

withinmonotheism.13“DoYouCreateYourOwnReality?”conciselydescribessomebasicelementswithinkarma.14ThisisdiscussedatlengthinthesectiononkarmainControl.15“Religion, Cults, and the Spiritual Vacuum” describes the nature and limitations of

renunciate religions. “Satanism” focuses on renunciation within monotheism; the chapter“Oneness”focusesonEasternrenunciateframeworks.16“ADialecticalApproachtotheOneandtheMany”in“EastandWest:LookingWithinand

LookingWithout” and the section on Buddhism (both in Control) further discuss the relationbetweentheOneandtheMany.17“WhatIsSelflessServiceServing?”inControlshowshowamoralitythatmakesselflessness

thehighestvaluebreedscorruption.18Thesectionsongoodandevilin“Satanism”describethisprocessmorefully.19“Love and Control: The Conditions Underlying Unconditional Love” shows how making

selflessness the pinnacle of love is part of an authoritarian moral order. The ideal ofunconditional love is the methodology promoted by both Eastern and Western religiousworldviewsasthewaytobridgethegap(agaptheycreated)betweenthesacredandthesecular.The chapter reveals how the ideal itself is part of renunciate, dualistic frameworks thatartificiallydistorttheexperienceandexpressionoflove.20See“DualismandRenunciation”in“Oneness,Enlightenment,andtheMysticalExperience,”

and“GoodandEvil”in“Satanism.”21“RenunciationasAccumulation”in“Oneness,Enlightenment,andtheMysticalExperience”

showsrenunciationtobethemirrorimageandproductoftheaccumulationmentality.Thatis,renunciationcanonlyoperatethroughamoralitybasedontheconceptofaccumulatingspiritualmeritthroughself-sacrifice.22See“TheSeductionsofSurrender.”23“What Is Selfless Service Serving?” in the section on Buddhism in Control discusses this

issue.24“WhoIsinControl?TheAuthoritarianRootsofAddiction”coversthedynamicsoftheinner

battlebetweenone’sso-calledgoodandbadparts.

B

Epilogue:WheretoGofromHere?

ehind themasks of authoritarianpower is the idea that there issomegreaterintelligencethatknowswhatisbestforothers.What

this always amounts to is that someone either claims to have thatintelligence, or to have a direct line into properly interpreting it. Thiscanoccurinanyrealmandindifferingdegrees.Itsmostextremeformsoccurwhenmoralsuperiorityislinkedtoinfallibility.Theimageofthegururepresentstheepitomeofthisconstruction,whichisthereasonforthisbook’stitle.Oftenincludedinthisisthecorollarythattheauthoritycaresmoreaboutyourwell-beingthanyoudo,andcandosobecauseofbeing selfless. Whether or not a state of ultimate selflessness orinfallibility isachievablebyanyonecanbedebated.Then too, there isthequestionof howanyone couldbe certain someone else really is insuchastate.Whatisclear,however,isthatobeyingothersbecausetheyclaimtobemorallysuperior,ortohaveaninsidetracktothetruth,notonly breeds corruption and lies, but removes people from personalresponsibility.We use the development of the individual as a metaphor to help

describeourviewofhumanity’spast,where it finds itself todate,andwhere it needs to go. In this analogy, pre-history is like humanity’sinfancywhere, aswith infants, theprimeneed is survival.During thisstageindividuals’livesweretotallydependentontheirimmediatesmallband. With the coming of agriculture, the species moved into itschildhood. As with a child, this period was marked by growth andexpansion.Asthepopulationmushroomed,smallgroupinterdependencywas replaced by ever larger authoritarianhierarchies. Itwas here thatthe still predominant authoritarian forms, including our currentmoralities,wereinitiated.The industrial revolution and tapping into nature’s powers through

science accelerated development and expansion, moving us intoadolescence.Youthischaracterizedbygreatself-absorption.Adolescentsplay with their newly discovered powers without much knowledge orconcern for consequences—especially consequences for others. Inadolescence there is often rebellion against adult authority, but notagainst authoritarianism.Teenagers generally look to or construct newgodsandidolstofollow.Ortheydevelopamisplacedfaithintheirownpoint of view, or that of their peers, by ignoring any information thatdoes not fit. This stance of unchallengeability that is directed towardother authorities is itself authoritarian. Adolescence is alsomarked byfeelingandactingasifonewereimmortal.Akeyelementofbecominganadultisfacingone’smortality.Doingsocan bring a shift in the focus of life, which in turn reorganizes basichabits. Upon seeing aging and eventually dying as part of life, thequestionthenbecomeshowtodosowithcareandelegance.Adulthoodisatimewhenactingoutoflonger-termimplicationsbecomesnecessaryinsteadofinsouciantshort-termgratifications.Theemphasisturnsmoretocareandmaintenance,andonemustbegintogetahandleonexcessesthat the aging body can no longer ignore. One realizes that althoughdeath is inevitable, one can affect not only the length, but also thequalityoflifebyone’sactions.Justasthemovementfromadolescenceto adulthood rarely occurs without some struggle, adjusting to therealityofmortalityrarelyoccurswithoutsomedenial.Weviewhumanityasawholeaslikewisestrugglingwiththenecessityof leaving itsadolescencebehind,because it too is facing itsmortality.Thatthespecieswillsomedayvanish,aswilloursungonova,isnottheissue. Upon facing the possibility of imminent extinction through self-destructiveness,therealissueiscanpeopleshifttheirhabitstoprolongboth the length and quality of life on this planet? Similar to theindividual, this would, in the species, include a shift in values andbehavior to greater preservation and care. As in infancy, humans areagain collectively confronted with the tenuousness of existence. Thedifferenceisthatnowwearethedanger;butwealsohavethenecessaryself-awarenesstorealizethatoursurvivalordemiseisinourownhands.As with the individual, this confrontation with death is part of thedevelopmental process that forces a reexamination of values andpriorities, which must include how our actions today impact future

viability. This is essential in order to grow up, as a person and as aspecies.Another necessary element in becoming an adult is realizing thatultimatelyotherscannotknowwhat’sbestforyou.Authoritarianpower,whether political or ideological, has been the major form of controlthroughout the history of our species’ childhood and youth. Thisincludes looking for a savior tomake things right. The very idea of asavior contains theassumption that suchapersonknowswhat’sbetterfor you than you do, thusmakingwhatever the presumed savior saysunchallengeable.Thesaviorapproachtoproblem-solvingnotonlykeepspeople childish, it is the basic mode of the old paradigm. It has alsojustified the greatest violence and abuses. The old paradigms all havesomeauthority—beitaleader,wiseman,guru,avatar,representativeofgod,orprophet—tellingtherestofuswhatlifeisaboutandhowtoleadit. How to replace this old methodology that we are outgrowing is amajorissuefacinghumanity.Thepastbyitsnaturehasastrongpull—aweightyauthorityandanimplicitcredibility.Itisnaturalforsolutionsthatworkedinthepasttobegivenpriority.This is thepowerofcustom,habit,andtradition, forexistingpathsareeasiertotake.Itisalsonaturaltobelievetheanswerstillliesintheoldsolutions,butthattheyjustneedtobedonebetter,orimplementedwithmoreforcefulness.Thisisareasonablecourseuntilitbecomesclearthattryingtoutilizeoldformsbettermakesthingsworse.Thatpointhasbeen reached, and so thepastno longerholds thekey.When old paths lead to a dead end, the solutions that worked beforebecomepartoftheproblem.Thisiswhytheneedforaparadigmshiftisintheair.Wheretogofromheremustcomefromtheinteractingperspectivesofliving people exercising theirwill not only to survive, but to create aworldwherethereisafuture.Hopeliesinthepossibilitythatourself-destructiveness is not our true nature, but rather that we have theintelligenceandcouragetochangeeventhedeepestpatterns,shouldthisbenecessary.Itisnownecessary;andfortunatelychangeispropelledbyconfrontingadeadend.Theoldsystemsofbelief,morality,andalsooftheway power has been constructed, protected, and used have servedhumanitytobringitwhereit is today,butarenolongerserving.Theyhavebecomeself-destructive.Ifhumanityistogrowupanddevelopits

enormous potential for creativity, it must also face the realities of itsdestructiveness.In these papers we have painted only a partial picture of how

authoritarianism runs deep in the psyches and structures of humanity.The larger projected work Control will examine a greater range ofinstitutions,issues,andbeliefs,showingtheirauthoritarianbasis.Wedoso becausewhat precedes and accelerates change is an awareness notonlythatchangeisneeded,butalsowhyitisneeded.Thisbookdoesnotofferprogrammaticsolutionsintheformofspecificcontent.Itdoesofferadifferentwayofconceptualizingbothproblemsandsolutions.Firstandforemost,itaimstoshowthatiftheprocessofchangeisauthoritarian,itisnotchangeatall.What is basically putting humanity at risk is its technologically

leveraged capacity for violence toward itself and Earth’s ecosystems.This combinedwith authoritarianhierarchies structurally producesnotonly corruption, but the likelihood of those on top using those belowuncaringly.Duringhumanity’sinfancywhenthegroup’swell-beingwaslinkedwithcaringforeveryindividual,allchildrenwereprotectedandcaredforbythegroup.Nowchildren,thefutureofthespecies,getlostin the shuffle, especially if their parents are incapable or unwilling tocare for them.Thispoints toone finalexampleof thedeadendofourpresentcourse.One of the greatest sources of violence on the planet is unwanted,

uncaredfor,unlovedchildren.Suchchildrenastheygrowolderarenotonlytypicallyangryandpronetoviolence,butarepotentialtime-bombsthat can capriciously explode anddestroywhatever is around them.Aworld isbeingcreatedthat is fullofpeoplewithouthope,oftendrivenby hatred and envy,who do not care about their own lives, let aloneyours.Howcansuchpeoplereallycareiflifeonthisplanetcontinuesornot?Theworldwide increase inpopulation coupledwithan increasingdiscrepancybetweenhavesandhave-notscreatesmoreandmorepeoplewithout hope. When a large segment of the population lives withouthope,itisdangerousforeveryone.Ifwearetosurvive,whatisneededare peoplewho have realistic hope for a better future andwho valuethemselves enough to care about others and the world at large. Thiswould involve forging a viablemorality thatmakes the self-worth andwell-beingofallchildrenprimary.Thussocietyasawholemustconsider

itself the parents of all its children, not leaving the responsibility fortheircareonlywithlegalparents.The constructionof suchamorality is the jobof all of us.But if itsbasisisauthoritarian,itwillnecessarilybreedthesameoldself-mistrustandcalloususeofpeopleinthenameofsomeunchallengeable“higher”principle. It could be argued that it’s too utopian to expect ordinarypeopletolooktothemselvesasthebottomlineofwhat’sright,andalsotocaresufficientlyabout thestateof theworld. It is true that thishasneveroccurredinhistory—butthenitneverhadto.Itisnotthatpeopleneedtomovetowardpersonalresponsibility,mutualrespect,andcareinordertobecomeorfeelmorallybetter.Itisratherthatweneedtodososimplytosurvive.Our hypothesis, which this book develops, is that the powerful andpervasivenatureofauthoritarianprogrammingcanexplainmuchofthemystery of humanity’s seeming dual nature, including the capacity tocompartmentalizeexpressionsofviolenceandcare.Ifourperspectiveisaccurate,itisgoodnewsinthatwearenotbiologicallystuck,andthusatanevolutionarydeadend.Onthecontrary,wearestuckinoutmodedbeliefsandmethodsthatgiveusnoideaofourpotential.Democracy,which is an idea, has spread throughout theworld in ahistoricallyshortperiodoftimebecauseitignitespeople’saspirationstohave more control over their own lives. The ideal of democracy hasmoved much of the world to where it is today. Democracy in itself,however,cannotcopewiththeextraordinarychallengestheworldnowfaces, because at best a democracy can only reflect the values of itsmembers. If, within democracies, authoritarian values and beliefs areconditioned(tovaryingdegrees)inmuchofthepopulation,thisimposesserious limitations on how democratic the democracy can actually be.Yetdemocracy isanexampleof thepowerofan idea. If,asweassert,manycoreproblemsaretoasignificantdegreeafunctionofoutmodedauthoritarian beliefs, this is truly a source of hope: Self-perpetuatingstructuresdependtotallyonbeliefsthatliveinpeople’sminds.Althoughbeliefstenaciouslyresistreorganization,shouldtheychange,thechangescancomeswiftly,withextraordinaryrepercussions.Seeingmoreclearlythe hidden nature and pervasiveness of authoritarian beliefs can itselfunderminetheirpower.Forus,hopeliesinthepossibilityofmovingbeyondourauthoritarian

past inorder tobuild togethera future thatvalueskeeping thisplanethabitable for its interwoven and interdependent forms of life. If thechallengeismet,theworldwillhavetobeabetterplaceforthoselivinginit,becauseforthefirsttimesincetheearlysmallbandsofhumanity’sinfancy,everyone’swell-beingisonceagainlinkedwithsurvival.

WhatHappenedtoControl?

TheGuruPapers(1993)showedusthatwecanneverknowwherewritingtogetherwilltakeus.Ourcreativeprocesshasprovedtobe unpredictable—expanding and moving us in unexpecteddirections—sowe’velearnednottoannounceunfinishedworksinadvance.

The Guru Papers is described in its preface as the first of aprojectedsetof threebooks thatwewerecallingControl. Itwasenvisioned as revealing mental authoritarianism in manyunexpected arenas. Numerous Guru Papers footnotes refer tocompletedchaptersfromthis1990sproject,butwesubsequentlygotinvolvedinotherprojectsanddecidedtoleaveitunfinished.

Since then the world has changed immensely, as have we,bringing pressing new challenges. The global “morals wars”predicted in The Guru Papers have spread and escalated, oftenturning lethal.Because ideological andcultural authoritarianismare more evident now, we shifted from exposing hiddenauthoritarianism—anendlesstask—tobroader,evenmoreurgentconcerns. Our focus became examining what in the nature ofbeinghumanbroughtourspeciestoitsperilouspredicamentandwherepossibilitieslieforcreatingaviable,betterworld.

Our 2009 book, The Passionate Mind Revisited: ExpandingPersonal and Social Awareness, addresses the current humancondition, examining the problems and potential of our dual(altruistic/self-centered) primate nature and the lacks andrepercussions of predominant worldviews. The final section,

“Intelligence without Design,” describes core limitations ofscientificmaterialismandpresentsanalternativeviewpoint thatsynthesizesscienceandspirituality.Theintroductionand“Time,”“Meditation,” and “Evolution” sections contain new insights ondeepproblemswithin traditional spiritualworldviews and somematerial that was to be in Control. They are the theoreticalfoundation for a process-oriented worldview that we deem notonlymorelikely,butalsomorefittingforaworldofacceleratedchange.

Visit joeldiana.com for information on our work, free podcasts,articles,andvideos.

AbouttheAuthors

JoelKramerandDianaAlstad’sbooks,talks,andseminarsaddressthecurrent human condition, offering new perspectives on our challengesand possibilities. They are coauthors of The Guru Papers: Masks ofAuthoritarianPower(1993)andThePassionateMindRevisited:ExpandingPersonal and Social Awareness (2009). They have taught at Esalen andOmega institutes and at centers throughout the United States andinternationally.

JoelKramer’sbookThePassionateMind:AManual forLivingCreativelywithOne’s Self (1974) illuminates theworkings of thought, igniting anawarenessthatcanmoveonebeyondthought’smechanicalaspects.Asaresident faculty member at Esalen Institute in Big Sur, California, he

examinedthebasicconcernsoflivingandthenatureofawarenessinhisseminars.Alsoayogapioneerandearlyinnovator,Kramerisconsidereda founder ofmodern yoga inAmerica for his seminal contributions torevisioning yoga and freeing it from its authoritarian roots. Hisevolutionary vision of yoga is foundational for many teachers andtrainings. His graduate work in philosophy and psychology at theUniversity of Florida, NYU, and Columbia focused on ethics,epistemology, thephilosophyof science,metaphysics,andcomparativereligion.

DianaAlstadreceivedaPhDfromYaleUniversityandwasaprofessorat Duke University in the humanities. AWoodrowWilson Fellow, shealso taught the first Women’s Studies courses at Yale and Duke,cofoundedNewHavenWomen’sLiberation,andwasontheboardoftheVeteran Feminists of America. Alstad led physical and mental yogaseminarswithJoelKramerformanyyears,and,byextendinghisyogicapproachtothesocialarena,createdayogaofrelationship—amodalitythey continue to develop and teach. She has been an interpreter andlecturerinFrenchandItalianandalsospeaksSpanish.

Formore on their work, visit joeldiana.com and their Facebook Page:JoelKramer&DianaAlstad.