Recently I had the distinct pleasure and
privilege
of having conversations with a minister from the United Church of
Christ,
a student of the Bible and an adherent of the word of
Jesus Christ,
and then with a devout Muslim, a student of the Koran and an adherent
of the word of Mohammed; later with an orthodox Jew, a student of the
Torah and an adherent of the word of Moses, then with a practicing
Hatha Yogi,
a student of the Vedas and an adherent of the work of
Mr BKS Iyengar.
All four, it turned out, were also
graduates
of
Werner's work.
In these conversations, what came out first and foremost was how these
four devotees regarded
Werner's work
as empowering to their respective arenas of worship, how
Werner's work
(among other gifts) allowed them to strip away the deadening positions
and beliefs they had inadvertently mired their faiths in, allowing them
instead to experience the material directly for the first
time.
All four told me in similar words Werner's
conversation for
transformation
is really holy and sacred - in the truest
sense of both those descriptors.
Now ... the other side of this coin is: it's all holy and
sacred. There's nothing in this world that isn't holy and
sacred. Holy and sacred, as seen on the high road to
enlightenment, is really just ordinary. Look: on the high road
to enlightenment, a state of being without
ego
is touted as an ultimate state ie a holy and sacred state. No, having
an
ego
is ordinary. Having an
egoand being responsible for having an
ego,
is extra-ordinary. I assert aspiring to be without
ego
is ultimate
ego.
I love Werner's irreverent notion of
"dogshit" reality.
You don't have to ask me to explain what
"dogshit" reality
is. Think of a self‑proclaimed wise man thinking
he's made it spiritually, when not watching, he steps in
dogshit.
You have to be something of a rogue to appreciate it. In order to avoid
the trappings of the
already always listening
when it comes to the holiness and the sacredness of the
conversation for
transformation,
you're pragmatic to choose the low road to enlightenment
rather than the high road. The irreverence of the low road to
enlightenment pokes fun at even our most precious beliefs and
practices. It has to. It has to consider even our most precious beliefs
and practices may just be unconscious machinery - unexamined deadening
positions and beliefs albeit cherished unexamined
deadening positions and beliefs.
On the high road to enlightenment, I'm enlightened as long as I believe
in enlightenment, and as long as I follow the practices touted to lead
to enlightenment. On the low road to enlightenment, I'm enlightened as
long as I speak enlightenment.
There's
nothing wrong
with the high road to enlightenment. I love its piety, its
sanctimoniousness, its reverence, its respect, its joy, and its beauty
... AND ... I question how effective it really is, given
peoples'
already always listening,
and given our propensity to add significance where there's none.
When the holy and sacred
conversation for
transformation
ceases to be effective because over the years people, with their best
intentions foremost, have starched it with meaning,
interpretation,
and significance and thereby reduced it to jargon, then it's time to
reinvigorate its vocabulary and to bring forth
who we really are
in its delivery. Thank you, and I'll take the low road.