Chapter 1

He was standing at the bar, I didn’t see him come in or walk toward it.

He had a tuque on, his head tilted down enough that he was speaking only with his eyes: large, dark, and slightly sunken. I was so attracted to him.

He ordered a shot of Wild Turkey and a Blue. His voice was so deep. The beer request gave me a moment of grace. At least I knew half his order.

I turned toward the bar, holding my breath, feeling my heart, scanning furiously while trying to be undetectable. “What the hell is ‘Wild Turkey’ and where the eff is it??...’”

Found it. I took it to the counter. Shaking from private embarrassment of not even knowing my job, and intimidation from his beauty and firmness, I spilt quite a bit. No mind. This has taken long enough. Move on.

Without smiling, mostly likely with a look of amazement and terror instead, I put down the shot in front of him. My boss, Sylvia, took inventory as though it were the eighties. Even those paying cash had to leave a paper trail. I over-heard his name. Chris. I tore off a clean sheet from my pad and silently wrote down his order.

It’s a friendly bar, only regulars really frequent. I went to the back to fetch beer to stock the fridge. My third last patron, Bruce, had left. My second, Manuel (pronounced [Man-well]), a Portuguese man who was about sixty and has an accent though he was born in Canada, was downstairs using the washroom. When I returned to the front I saw that Bruce was gone. He didn’t say good-bye. Did he know?...

In my naïve, friendly, and absolving fashion, I ran toward the door to shout good-bye. Manuel was now coming up the stairs, located right beside the door, and told me to get away from it. It was nearly the dead of winter. He then bid me a good-night.

Manuel didn’t get along with Sylvia, I never really knew why. They didn’t say and I didn’t ask. He would put me in awkward situations because he would bad-talk her within my earshot, but he would prove to be very dear to me: he played my cupid out of his usual sheer generosity.

Chris went downstairs. I hoped he was staying. I went back to get more stock.

Just as I hit the threshold between the back and the bar, Chris was right there, we literally collided. It was perfect. I knew then and there something magical was happening. Nothing ever worked so organically or timely for me.

I think he would have walked into the back had I not gotten to that dividing point first. The regulars treat the bar like their home, that’s how Sylvia can keep it running, even though it’s usually quite empty. Many have seen the disarray of the back room and kitchen, though I was told on more than one occasion that it wasn’t allowed. I soon saw that there were more rules for me since I was new.

Chris said that he wanted to play a new album he just bought between work and the bar. I said sure. I continued to move behind the bar and neatly placed the beer in the fridge. First things first! Chris was now a few steps behind the bar. I nearly panicked. “You can’t come back here!” I exclaimed. He looked taken aback, but also endeared.

He handed me the CD. Amy Winehouse’s post-mortem album. I wasn’t fond of her music until that night. At this point, it was only Chris and me in the room. We sat directly across from each other, with the bar in between, forming a safe barrier.

The music was so smooth and sensual. There were waves where I felt that we were bonding, where I felt that we were falling in love. That made me feel uneasy.

I admired that he spent money on actual albums instead of stealing them online. He said the two most important things to him were books and music. That he had more albums, books, and movies than his tiny bachelor apartment could manage, and that he even had quite a few of his CD's there at the bar. I was officially enamoured.

I was the one in control, running the bar, but he controlled our interaction, talking non-stop; it was quite remarkable. And when I wasn’t floating in and out of paranoia, I felt like a princess.

He influenced me so much. I even became patriotic that night. I asked him what his background was. He told me Canadian. I told him there was no such thing. He, with more authority than my timid being could feel comfortable with, said that was not true: that once we are even just first generation, where our ancestors came from has no bearing. I think the fact that his mother’s side were pioneers had much to do with his view as well. Then and there I stopped thinking about the UK. I didn’t want to be English anymore. I wanted to be North American.

No one else came into the bar during my shift. I knew God was working with me that night.

I hoped to see him again on my next shift.

Words are the building blocks of society

After writing an email of restitution to one of my dance coaches this morning with tears in my eyes, I realized in its entirety why I unconditionally love writing matter which is of serious nature.

I love words. I feel that I do not have the largest or more impressive vocabulary, but words for me are magical, and I often day-dream about making a new word (which is entirely possible for anyone to do, since English is a living language, ie. it changes).

I was working as a bartender from November up until this month. I endured some mistreatments, as any one in the service industry inevitably does. But the one that has stayed with me the longest, was when one of my patrons asked me how far I got in my education. I told him I earned my degree in English. He said, "Oh yes, you speak great English". For anyone who doesn't know me, my lineage is English, and it shows - sans the accent - so sometimes it feels like, "Oh yes. the girl who speaks English who decided to study it as well..."

I said thank-you, because I thought he was complimenting my eloquent and proper speech. And you know, maybe he was, but a few moments after his comment, I thought, "Hey, wait a minute...!"

I said then, "Well, yes I am quite good at it. I had my work chosen by my teachers and published in school papers, and I won contests, and I was chosen to read my pieces in poetry festivals." I still don't know if he was genuine, or giving me a back-handed compliment, but my gut tells me it was the latter.

Fast forward a couple of months. Last night I was at an awesome dessert shop. A couple, who looked like they were on a first date sat beside my table (after a hundred first dates I can spot them out like bees to flowers). I could overhear them talking as my boyfriend and I silently shovelled delectable waffles and crêpes into our faces. They were talking about a girl and her degree. The guy asked what the degree was in, and she said bio-chemistry. He replied, "Wow! So she's actually smart".

I felt ashamed, as my boyfriend most likely over-heard that comment as well. I am well aware of what people think of English degrees. I am also aware that I belittle myself, and for the most part do not take pride in my accomplishments, even though I almost didn't graduate at all after a psychiatric melt-down in my third year.

But after writing my apology with my fearless explanation for my transgression, essentially saying I could not carry on with her, I realized as I scanned my sentences over and over, fine-tuning, finding the most accurate and honest word, bleeding into my email, that I am a great writer, and I do love and am proud of my degree. It is not a joke, and I am smart. People like the men who have put me or others like me down for allegedly taking a free-ride through higher education are just ignorant and/or jealous!

I spent a year going to the campus community centre and getting tutored in the evening, just trying to appease my professors, all who wanted their own egotistical specific writing style, breaking my back trying to get right what I thought, but now know I have a natural talent for. I got nearly perfect in syntax lessons, and I proof-read anyone and everyone's papers in my residence. And even though I skipped out on a lot of my novels, took short cuts, and crammed, which I still feel guilty for, I still worked hard, and when I did, I loved it, and I produced great essays.

When I was 19 one of my professors asked me, "Is this what you really want to say?" Then and there the way I wrote changed forever. Even when I am just posting in my religion groups, or writing a little note on my profile, I ask myself, "Is this what I am really trying to say?" The way we communicate is without credit in our words, and whenever I am at my computer my dictionary browser is up and used on an average of10 times a day, mostly for synonyms. I've used dictionary.com at least 10 times for this blog alone.

Words are the root of civilization, and maybe all this guilt that I have carried all these years is just a message for me to start making some paper off my ability to write on it. Pun intended :)

The Problem of (misunderstanding) Evil, part II

("The Problem of (misunderstanding) Evil", [part I, apparently] was posted on my Facebook page).

After being launched into the 4th dimension, I no longer believe in angels or demons. Rather, I now believe that these beings are "aliens". This blog will not be addressing the archangels of heaven, but rather, their counterparts, the seven princes of hell.

I argue that these demons are the "giants" recorded in Genesis 6.4, made evil in the Abrahamic faiths which superceded the Sumerian religions, re-naming and re-creating the entities.

It is accepted that these spirits "fell" from the sky, though there is no text (that I on my own or from Googling have found) which actually states that there was a fall from heaven. Naturally, whether alien, angel, or demon, they would in fact come from the sky, but it seems to me that we have implied a state of sin with the word "fallen" in malice.

These beings who were not-of-this-world were recorded in Mesoptamian texts before they were recorded in the Palestinian texts. In the Sumerian texts, these "angels" were not fallen beings engaged in spiritual warfare with humans. In fact, these non-earthly beings were considered to be friends to the humans: offering them gifts and teaching them about the arts, sciences, magic, and so on. But by the recordings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, these beings were downsized from gods to iniquitous angels (ie. demons), in part because of what they passed onto man!

I believe that the evil in our nature can be scientifically identified by our tRNA that is in the shape of a cross, and that ignorance or rejection of our origins is what has caused such disparity ranging from global to within.

In not recognizing these beings who have influenced our world, or, in any small and dismissive acknowledgement that is made within religious circles, villanizing them, I believe is the reason why we are in a painful imbalance, tottering between familiar depravity and poverty.

I believe that pain results from judgement, and we are pointing fingers instead of using diplomacy to find peace. I know from my own experience that when I judge and label, I have no peace; I now know after a painful year of dictatorial beliefs that were solely fear-based, it is better to risk being wrong about someone in wishing them peace, than in wishing them reproof.

Is it possible that we can break our generational curse? Yes, I think it is, and yes it is frightening, because it involves turning our swords into plowshares, which might leave us feeling defenseless. But Enoch, one of the greatest prophets in the Bible, interceded for these "demons" until he would fall asleep; and not only was Enoch not afraid, but he is considered to be the only human to have never experienced death.

"May the longtime sun shine upon you, all love surround you; and the pure light within you guide your way on..."

Sat Nam: what it means to me

Translation of “Sat Nam”: literally, “True” and “Name”, is the mantra which I have most frequently used in Kundalini Yoga. We say it to greet, to say good-bye, to bless, and to complete our classes and meditations. Sat Nam means “My name is truth” or, “I am the embodiment of truth”. 

I believe that Sat Nam is the closest connection that we have with our Higher Power here on Earth - that it is God’s gift which has been given so that we may go inward and gain strength. Our Sat Nam, I feel, is the soul, and cannot be defiled. I believe that it has been given to us by the Highest Power for our comfort and protection, so that we are able to come to personal and universal truths, and to also heal from injuries commonly sustained while on Earth.

Seekers have likened our internal force to a compass, always guiding us. I love this metaphor, because the needle points to the north, and arguably the ultimate goal of the soul is to return to its home in the heavens above. I believe that Sat Nam is what keeps our direction toward the Unnameable and Unknowable that we loosely call God.

Jesus said, “Do not let anyone call you ‘Rabbi’, there is but one Rabbi, the Christ…do not let anyone call you Teacher, there is but one teacher, the Christ.” - Matthew 23.8+10, King James Version. I believe that Jesus was not referring to himself in the third person, and that he repeats the word “Christ” as a teaching method. So then, who is the Christ?

I suspect that in his command, Jesus was teaching us of the Sat Nam: the purity within us that gently leads with clarity as the compass does, providing solace and wisdom, and guiding us in what to focus on, in what not to focus on, and in feeling confident about our choices. 

Later in chapter 24, Jesus says, “If anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ’, or ‘Over here’, do not believe it […]” (verse 23). I believe that Jesus is warning his disciples of the “false Christs and false prophets” (verse 24), because this Ultimate power is not separate from us. 

Luke’s Gospel also recaptures Jesus’ message to stay alert about those who misleading, but just before his warning, he gives a blessing, “The coming of the kingdom of God does not admit of observation and there will be no one to say, ‘Look it is here! Look, it is there!’ For look, the kingdom of God is within you.” (chapter 17, verses 20-1). Again, some translations say, “in your midst”, or “among you”, but I find these translations from the NIV and NJB to be intellectually dishonest; how can it not be “over there”, but still be “around”? 

I believe that Jesus was telling us of our Sat Nam: a reminder that we are loved just as we are, and that we already have all of the answers, relief, and strength that we need and want.

I recognize our Sat Nam to be a magical innate tool that can be used to keep us safe and happy. So when our connection to it is healthy, it will guide us to places and ideas that are true, and steer us from those that are false. Even the saints and the sages were, and are, limited here on Earth, and therefore so is their works: even the most spiritually advanced should be questioned.  I believe that our Sat Nam is God's instrument, our soul, and that it alone will never fail us.

My Sat Nam, as I understand it, is my greatest companion.

No more crosses

Something that I feel the atheists are onto, is at the end of the day we did not just "pop up" on this planet the way that the monotheistic religions teach us, and which now accept evolution as truth, giving varying explanations on why the doctrines of the creation story were once accepted as fact.

No, we came to be out of billions upon billions of years of development, first from the expansion of the universe, to our progress as single-celled amebae in the sea. So why wouldn't we understand this to be the case with God as well?

Everything in this universe has formed either through polar attraction, chemical reaction, or gravitational clumping. In other words, nothing came into existence on its own - there has always been a linking.

If we are made in God's image, and God is absolute alone, then why do we need so many elements to exist? We need a sperm, an egg, and an incubator, along with the things needed for progression, such as air, water, shelter, time, and so on. So how can this First Cause have not also needed something which would not only consummate him, but that would also keep him moving to the point that the universe has developed to today?  How could this Source not also need to work with other elements to exist?

This question in no means is posing a crisis of faith. I know demons, and they know me, and I know what a dark night of the soul is - I experience it every several months or so, and it only frightened me the first time, in Advent 2010; now, it's more so just a nuisance. What I am questioning now, is more so an honest look at the idea that the apple does not fall far from the tree.

I am starting to see Yahweh for who he really is: a jealous and vengeful deity who invokes fear to keep us out of his way. But I do not fear him, for Jesus is my staff, and he has promised to lighten my burden. Of course I feel apprehension, but really this questioning has only renewed my commitment to the Eucharist - the centre of the Catholic faith.

This is why, through all of my heresies, through all of my apparent "blasphemies", through all of my possibly corrupted and perhaps even evil teachings, I take the Eucharist to keep me safe from both the demiurge of the Old Testament, and, as originally taken, to protect myself from those who try to destroy me through the barbaric techniques in mind-control training. But perhaps the witches and Yahweh are one in the same now.

Therefore, though many would disagree and feel the (hypocritical) need to pray for my soul that is accused to be accursed to descend rapidly into the depths of hell, I consider myself to not only be a good and obedient Catholic, but also a favoured one.

In Catholicism, we do not believe that we choose Christ - we believe that it is he who chooses us. Jesus chose me at one of the most pivotal times of my life. Not only I was in the midst of training to become a Kundalini Yoga Teacher (which I had spent thousands of dollars to train for, and yes, I completed the course - and three years later have still not taught a single class), but I was also being mentally assessed by my therapist, and defiant of the diagnosis, and lastly, utterly confused about this Jesus character, listening to yogis teaching me that this was the end of his (Piscean) age (and the beginning of the "new age" - the age of Aquarius).

Now, the scales have fallen from my eyes, and I recognize Yahweh to be my enemy. This time, I do not fear him. This time I want justice for myself and for this world that we have been so insidiously taught is fallen, and which in turn only justifies, and even encourages the "evil" state of man. I will no longer let this war-criminal pervert - who we have named and worshipped in error, "([The Source] is unnameable, since there is no one prior to him to give him a name") who requests us to murder one another, who punishes us simply for being human, and who, in the most hideous request of all in my opinion, asks us to mutilate infant boys in their most private and sensitive members - continue to take the reigns.

And yes, this puts me in an uncomfortable position, not only because it ostracizes me from my peers, but because Yahweh is far greater than me, and I worry that there will be repercussions for my overt beliefs. But as a true Catholic, without this Trinity garbage and reverence of the cross, Jesus is my Lord, and I am obediant and loyal. "He who loses his life for me will save it."

I believe that the Eucharist will keep my spirit untouchable. Though we can rarely escape man, my soul is my Lord's - it is not even mine to be taken, nor given away, nor broken, nor destroyed.

And I shall dwell in the house of the Lord FOREVER.

Forgive our enemies?

I am currently struggling with certain instructions from the Old Testament, and I am now suspecting that there are, intentional or unintentional, incorrect words/teachings in the New Testament.  Currently the most difficult teaching for me to grasp is to forgive my enemy, as Jesus (allegedly) taught us in the Lord's Prayer/Our Father.  


So I have turned straight to the source - the two "great commandments", as shown in Matthew chapter 22, verses 37-9.


1) "Love your Lord" (we should not be afraid to know our Lord as we understand him. No one, no church, has dominion over what or who god is). "…with all of your heart, soul, and mind. This is the greatest commandment."


What does this mean? For me, it means that no being, human, angelic, even our very selves, gets the better of us when we put the higher being first. Not one is greater than he who began it all. When we can be strong enough to accept who we understand god to be, we will become gods in our own rights, because we will be able to stand firm in our convictions, no matter the adversary.


2) "The second resembles it. Love your neighbour as yourself."


How do we "love" ourselves? My understanding is very simple: we take care of ourselves. We eat when we need to, rest when we need to, ensure we have proper shelter, which includes both housing and clothing, not harm ourselves, such as having self-respect that allows for us to exist in dignity.


Some advice I was given back in the summer, is when we want to berate ourselves, stop and think, "would I treat my best friend that way? Would I say these things (derogatory, cruel, etc.) to my friends? Of course not! So why would I say them to myself?"


So then, how do we love our neighbours? Given the above listed ways of loving ourselves as a reference point, I think it's clear. Does this person need food, clothing, shelter, comfort, education, and if so, can we help?


So where, is forgiveness mentioned in any of this?


No where!  Only compassion is to be offered.  When Jesus said the word "neighbour", he did not literally mean the person living next door, or across the street. Jesus explains this in the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10.25-37):


"Jesus said, 'A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'


'Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?'


The expert in the law replied, 'The one who had mercy on him.'


Jesus told him, 'Go and do likewise.'"


Note: One of the most significant teachings of this story requires a bit of historic background. The Samaritans were foreigners and were not well-liked by the Jews, so we can understand that Jesus was explaining our neighbour is the one who is in need.


Below is a story to follow up this parable, that I believe interchanges "neighbour" with "brethren":


"'I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'


The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did unto me.'" (Matthew 25.35-40)


I believe that when Jesus taught us the Lord's Prayer/The Our Father in Luke 11.3-4, he did not actually use the word "forgive" (as in, forgive our enemies). To forgive is to wipe the slate clean – even Yahweh did not do this for Adam and Eve.  


No, I believe that Jesus said "pray" for our enemies. I believe that enemies and neighbours are opposite - the goats and the sheep (see Matthew 25.33), that will be separated on the last day, or, what I currently understand to be the day of the apocalypse - where all things hidden will be revealed.


I have concluded that the Lord's Prayer and the two commandments which the new covenant hang on are inconsistent and incompatible, so I have at this time agreed with some of the sources that I sought out that argue we are indeed to "pray" for those who harm us instead.  


"Pray for us, for our trespasses,
And we will pray for those who trespass against us."


Praying for anyone, especially our enemies, to me is not only love, but is one of the greatest signs of it, and an excellent act of compassion.


And if we can forgive, more power to us.  But I feel forgiveness is not where we become embodied as Christians in the new covenant.

No fear in the gnosis, no weakness in the eucharist

"Jesus said, 'Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. And after they have reigned they will rest.'" The (Gnostic) Gospel of Thomas

The below are points that I agree with, taken from biblicalreader.com.  Some statements in the article, I do not support at all: most notably the assertion that Jesus did not die on the cross.  That said, the article does recognize that there are various forms of thought in what we call Gnosticism, due to a lack of creed, I suspect, and I consider that the many paths in the traditions to be heaven-sent, because mysticism is personal - a divine revelation between the individual and the Most High itself, whether that is the Adonai, our "Higher Self", or something still to be revealed (to me, at least).

After all, we are all on individual paths, being led to truths as our god, through his working relationship with us, and thereby knowing what we need, and what information we can manage to accept at the various stages of our searchings, reveals to us.  When we can, without ego and hierarchy, come together, inspire each other, and help each other to understand the ailments of this world, we can begin to reconcile with ourselves and our environments.

~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~

1) This cross between Platonism and Christianity is now broadly referred to as ‘Gnosticism.’

2) Gnostics universally believed that the God of the Old  Testament, called ‘Yahweh,’ (or ‘Jehovah’) is not, in fact, the eternal and holy God, but rather a very powerful angelic-like being, often referred to as ‘the Demiurge’

3) To the Gnostic, Christ was not a redeemer from the power of sin, but a deliverer from the power of the false God of the Jews.

4) The serpent in the Garden was  actually an agent of good and tried to help man see the truth about the Demiurge.

5) Much of the Old and New Testament Scriptures reflect the religion of the Demiurge, and are therefore unreliable. 

6) Gnosticism can in no sense be viewed as an alternate form of Christianity as has been suggested by some.

To conclude, for those who read the full article and noticed the strong connection of Plato to Christianity, here is a note on Platonism and Christianity, taken from Wikipedia:

"Platonism influenced Christianity through Clement of Alexandria and Origen, and the Cappadocian Fathers.  St. Augustine was heavily influenced by Platonism as well, which he encountered through the Latin translations of Marius Victorinus of the works of Porphyry and/or Plotinus.

Platonism was considered authoritative in the Middle Ages, and many Platonic notions are now permanent elements of Christianity.  Platonism also influenced both Eastern and Western mysticism.

Meanwhile, Platonism influenced various philosophers.  While Aristotle became more influential than Plato in the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas's philosophy was still in certain respects fundamentally Platonic.

With the Renaissance, scholars became more interested in Plato himself.  In 16th, 17th, and 19th century England, Plato's ideas influenced many religious thinkers.  Orthodox Protestantism in continental Europe, however, distrusts natural reason and has often been critical of Platonism."

~ Adonai