Before I get into my talk, I thought I should throw out some definitions of suffering. A lay person might say that suffering is the result of physical pain or a reaction to adversity. A Christian might say that suffering is a result of a separation from God. I suspect there would be an additional element of sin and shame. A Buddhist might say that suffering is the result of desire; of not accepting reality. I'll get back to this later.

I was brought up a Catholic, although I was spared parochial school. For confirmation we had to learn the rote answers for such meaning of life questions as, "What is your purpose here on earth?" "To know, love and serve God." Didn't you know? Even then, that edict seemed abstract. How much of my day was taken in these activities? I thought maybe it was something you could do better as an adult. I was busy trying, mostly unsuccessfully, to stay out of trouble.

I was told that no one was, or could be, perfect - outside of Jesus and the Virgin Mary. Why was that impossible? Well, I was a good person, I thought, couldn't I be perfect if I really tried? Kids are by definition audacious and naive. They are intention oriented rather than outcome oriented. They'd never understand the saying, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." But also all the messages I got were that I was a bad kid. Yet, I felt I was good inside. Perhaps that's why I have always identified with the sinners of the world.

The other thing I struggled with was the whole idea of martyrdom. Christ died for your sins. Gee, are they so bad that I can't atone for them myself, assuming atonement is needed? And what about this whole original sin idea? I'm bad because Adam and Eve got curious? And what about the joy the early Christians took in martyrdom?

As an adult, these things became even more problematic. The interpretation of genesis that makes the most sense to me came from a Reichian psychologist in his book, Man in the Trap. He thought we originally had a more animal-like consciousness. We could communicate with the animals and were instinctual, with no need for a conscience. We were part of our environment. Then it was time for us to make a leap in consciousness. To know that there is a future and a past is to be able to project yourself; to have self-consciousness. Only with a sense of an independent self can one understand that there are choices and therefore consequences. This is, literally, the knowledge of good and evil. But in the Bible, Adam and Eve appeared to feel shame. Because some cultures operate on principles that do not include shame and forgiveness, but offer nonjudgemental ways to restore harmony, I don't see this response as inevitable.

If we value our human consciousness, this makes Adam and Eve our heroes. But a part of us also longs for that innocent time. Hence our vilification of them. The November/ December 99 issue of"The World" had an article about sin in which Lawrence Krushner was sited as speculating that perhaps God set Adam and Eve up to get them out on their own - they were over 18, presumably. Still, what does that make original sin? Human consciousness? In Catholic ideology, Christ dies to wipe out original sin so that we could go to heaven. Perhaps only God's love and our lost innocence can free us from the suffering in this world. For those who don't have the concept of original sin, God's love still works. Sin being the result of an act whose impact causes harm, guilt, shame and a resulting fall from the natural state of grace or self-love.

In this light, Christ's death makes sense. If we accept his message of hope and love, we will have a weapon against shame. This is a potent gift. But besides the notion that most Christians don't see Christ's legacy quite this way, the question remains, did he have to be martyred in order to have this message survive and for us to feel his love? To me, martyrdom seems to under cut his message. Buddhism did not need martyrdom, nor did Islam. The answer would lie in an examination of the Jewish beliefs about suffering and redemption. Scripture had dictated how the messiah was supposed to die. I would ask again why this legacy?

Let's take another perspective. Seth, the disembodied consciousness who spoke through Jane Roberts, said that it was not Christ himself who died on the cross, which is why John denied him three times. Evidently, just as now, there were crazies who thought they were Christ and one of these came forward. Was that why so many people didn't recognize him when he rose from the dead? Was there a second imposter? Was there a miracle? Seth didn't want people to get hung up on all this, because he felt the belief of millions of Christians created a reality more real than this physical reality.

But it makes me feel better because I feel that the Christ of the stories in the Bible with his emphasis on how we are supposed to be guided by principles rather than ruled by the laws of the old Testament, did not fit with the martyr crucified according to some old Testament thirst for blood. Indeed, his death seemed to switch the direction of his life. Without martyrdom, the eight beatitudes become more of a prescription for life than a compensation for the inequities of it. Thus suffering moves from something not to get hung up upon to something we should embrace. This reached it's extreme form in the early Christians who believed that it was glorious to suffer and that this suffering would insure them a place in heaven. So following Christ becomes not only how you lived your life, but also, how much you suffered in your death. But I shouldn't feel too cynical about this, it was their capacity to suffer and die for their faith that eventually impressed and won over their pagan rulers.

Still, so in love with suffering did the Christians become that to be comfortable and happy was to invite the devil. Job became their model rather than King Solomon. The dictum, "It is more difficult for the rich to get in Heaven than a camel to go through the eye of the needle," was taken literally since the knowledge was lost that the "eye of the needle" was the name of a gate into Jerusalem which was so narrow that all the packing of a camel had to be removed for it to pass through. Thus we went from "You can't take it with you," to "money is the root of all evil."

This was undoubtedly part of the mortar that kept fuedalism and the dark ages alive for so long. It awaited the Protestants, the Calvinists foremost among them, to call this love of poverty laziness. They insisted that you could be responsible for your station in life. They made working hard and getting ahead virtuous and laid the foundation for American capitalism.

The New Age view goes even further with its view of total personal responsibility. The idea that Seth introduced was that we create our own reality with the force of our beliefs. The beliefs that cause problems he calls, "limiting beliefs." The antedote to a "limiting belief" is a countering affirmation, but first you must examine your beliefs to find the culprits. I have yet to put in the concerted effort needed for this, but I have some ideas how one might go about it.

You can start with any subject and examine it from the societal, working your way through the various layers and groups you are part of (for instance class, reliegion, sex, political party, and family) to the very personal. I will suggest that deeply imbedded in many issues there is at base a society that is more comfortable with skepticism, sarcasm, alienation and other forms of poisoning negativity than hope, optimism and faith.

Another, perhaps more direct way to ferret out "limiting beliefs," is to look at what you are manifesting in your life and work backwards. This might resemble working with a therapist. Don't be surprised if you find yourself thinking in response to almost any declaration, "that's a belief." You might even start questioning all your assumptions.

Once the "limiting beliefs" are spelled out, the countering affirmation will be obvious. But Seth cautions that affirmations must not have a negative in it or otherwise refer to the problem, such as "I have no money problems." Affirmations are best done during a meditation session and then forgotten. Otherwise we can go too far with hunting out "limiting beliefs" and this can lead to the thought police. We feel that old nemesis guilt every time we have a negative thought and actually attract more negativity. And so when something bad happens we say to ourselves we have only ourselves to blame. This can be a pretty disheartening cycle.

As belief work seemed pretty intimidating, I began looking elsewhere for help. I started to listen to a tape on suffering by a American-Buddhist nun. I confess, I didn't get very far. She said that suffering, is our natural state. Life is suffering, and so you just accept it - indeed, expect it. For, additional suffering comes from not accepting suffering as our natural state. I had read that Tibetan Buddhist monks had survived torture at the hands of their Chinese oppressors without any psychological after-effects such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The researchers postulated that because of the Buddhist belief in reincarnation, they felt that their suffering balanced karma from other lives. They imagined that they had done something or would do something to deserve this suffering and they were atoning for it now; moving their souls along in their evolution. Also, because the Buddhist purpose in life is self-knowledge, every situation becomes grist for understanding.

Accepting suffering as natural and pursuing self-knowledge leads to compassion as opposed to blame or revenge, and this is their great gift. In true compassion you identify with the transgressor. But too great an acceptance of suffering grates on my New Age notion that suffering is not inevitable or virtuous. And what about your responsibility to prevent suffering - both your own and any you might inadvertently cause? To their credit, Buddhists struggle to mitigate the suffering they might inflict, and they are activists in many nonviolent protests.

So I came back with a, hopefully, mature view of New Ageism. I think that guilt had been my trap. In the course of dealing with family problems, I had had to come to terms with my own guilt. I had to stop not only the "thought police" but, the "If onlies." Guilt can be debilatating. The belief that guilt keeps you on the straight and narrow is an admission that humans are not innately good and need something outside themselves to keep them in check. This is perpetuated by both Darwinism and Creationism with it's concept of evil passed down from the Garden of Eden - none of which I buy. We aren't evolved savages, the legacy of Darwinism, or victims of our evil nature. All "evil" can be traced to understandable human emotions: usually fear.

Instead, I like the New Age idea that this life is a kindergarten. We are here to learn. Everybody is where they should be for whatever lesson they need to learn. Before we were born, we had an idea of what we wanted to learn and what situation would be best suited to help us with those lessons. We are not responsible for the choices of other people, but we brought these other people into our lives for a reason. If we can get in touch with these reasons, we will know how to use these encounters. These are the gifts of New Ageism.

Psychology and psychiatry also have contributions. Psychiatry sees a biochemical imbalance as the culprit in many conditions such as depression and anxiety. It has given us the seratonin-reuptake inhibitors and other drugs which - despite their recalling to mind Brave New World - have made it possible for me to cope. It can be a risky gift because it invites suppression which while useful at the time can come back to bite you.

For psychologists, suffering is a result of our neurosis which keeps us in a maladaptive pattern and prevents us from taking effective action. We can change how we relate to people, we can accept ourselves and others, and we can take care of ourselves when we feel under siege. This, especially the last recommendation, has been therapy's gift to me. However, it sometimes conflicts a little with New Age principles is in its reliance on mining the past to understand the present. New Agers understand that the sources of our deepest limiting beliefs reside in the past, but we have a concern that sometimes dwelling on past unhappiness could attract the same problems and unhappiness into your present life. And therapists don't always like all the emphasis on total responsibility for things that happen to you. It smacks of guilt when they see that other people have their issues, too.

But it seems my old pact to be perfect won't let me be content with this. It seems that every shortcoming and foible that I have noticed in myself gets addressed sooner or later. Where perfectionism used to be the absence of doing wrong and the presence of virtue to me, now I see it as the process of addressing my issues. It's not that I see myself as perfect, but that everything in life is a perfect process. And even if I fail or have a difficult time of it, the process often prepares me for a later challenge. Of course, this is a belief. Perhaps not any less dangerous a belief than the Christian or Buddhists beliefs about suffering. You never want to welcome suffering. To think that growth can only be achieved by suffering is a "limiting belief." Instead, wish for growth from positive changes, abundance, joy, etc.

In spite of all this searching, a year ago, my crises kept getting worse. Maybe, it was the way I reacted. Maybe I needed to be tested until my reactions weren't so intense. The irony is that when I did finally become blasé in a crisis, I thought I was becoming a psychopath! And anyway I still had crises. So I decided not to get caught up in all these issues. I understand that underneath all these points of view is the desire to control if not the troubles, then my reactions to them; my suffering. And perhaps control is an illusion.

But I finally found a way to approach my coping and the underlying issues. I practice a special meditation technique. Every morning I can, I chant "Ah" for a few minutes. Then I do affirmations and chant "Ah" again. As I am chanting I try to see myself aligned with the Universe with a joyful sense that whatever I am moved to do is for the betterment of all concerned and that this will resolve the situation. I have returned to "know, love and serve God." (I just prefer the less limiting word "Universe.")

In the evening I chant "Om" and feel grateful. I change the wording of my affirmations, starting them with "Thank you for..." I try to visualize the positive aspects of the day. I "Om" some more and then end with "Shalom." On nights when I feel too upset to find the positive, I often don't do any meditation. I feel it's better not to meditate than to meditate on negative images. Whether or not things are objectively improving, I'm not going to address. According to Wayne Dyer who promotes a variation of this method, taking credit involves the ego and can nullify the positive results. (Call me superstitious!)

But, I remember well the story from the New Testament where a woman, a leper, thinks to herself that she has only to touch Jesus' robe and she will be cured. She does, and she is and Jesus turns to her and says, "Go now, and be well, your faith has saved thee." So I have quiet faith and, if nothing else, I see the meditation as helping me stay centered and this can't help but have a positive influence on myself and those around me. In any event, this meditation technique is my gift to you.