Paul Chek, the Director's Cut

Okay, here’s the part of today’s (Feb. 8th) Paul Chek interview that was edited out because it deals largely with religion and that would have caused the article discussion thread to turn into a theological debate:

TM: So, what’s the next big thing?

PC: I believe that will be training the mind and body in an integrated fashion; making training a spiritual practice as opposed to an ego-driven one.

TM: Can you elaborate on that a bit?

PC: Sure. With people now becoming aware of research in the field of psychoneuroimmunology, there is a growing awareness in professional medical and public circles as to the relationship between our mental health and our physical health. Research also shows Christianity is dwindling and Buddhism and other non-dualistic religions are growing. Both of these, in my view, are indicators that people are becoming aware of the fact that one’s mental state is reflected in their physical state and vice versa.

The sick people have come to their wits’ end with drugs and standard medical approaches, and are now getting significantly improved results by seeing integrated medical and allied health care practitioners. Such practitioners typically see the body and mind as interwoven and don 't make the mistake of stepping on a cat’s tail and wondering why it’s the other end that yells!

TM: Okay, seeing the mind and body as interwoven makes sense. But I’m not following how religion and dwindling Christianity fits into this?

PC: Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions (Judaism and Islam) are showing diminishing numbers, particularly among the middle classes in industrialized nations while growing in third-world countries. I believe this is because people are finding that a philosophy based on harsh polarities such as good and evil creates a world-view that is divisional in a time when world harmony is paramount if we are to survive together.

The result of joining such a religion is that you gain a few friends in Church, and lose the rest of the world because they practice a different religion, or believe in a different savior or God. This sort of view naturally leads to tremendous confusion and unrest because in each of these so-called monotheistic religions, they teach that a), There is only One God, and b), that God Is Love. Yet, at the same time, there is tremendous back-stabbing, resent, proselytizing, and of course, terrorism and war, all in the name of God!

When people are told there is only One God and that God is love and all around them people are being segregated and abused because they have different beliefs, and this God of Love (of theirs) seems to be the source of tremendous pain, conflict naturally arise within the intelligent among them.

TM: But you don’t see that as necessarily the case with all religions or the people who practice them?

PC: No, it isn’t. Buddhism, Taoism, and a host of New Age religions have produced a significant number of people that now share a broader world-view. Instead of a duality philosophy, this view sees life as a dialectic, which is a field of tensions, like a rainbow. They realize that just as you canâ??t possibly separate red from orange, orange from yellow, yellow from green in a rainbow, all people and their mind-sets encompass a spectrum.

Many of these religions don’t use the word “God” or teach that way because it leads to the conversion of “GOD” (absolute wholeness) – something that can’t possibly be known by a mind, which is a relativity generator-- into an idea. Ideas always create limitation – or division, because for every “is,” there must be an “isn’t.” For example, if you believe Jesus is the only begotten savior, which opens the door wide for implying that everyone else’s begotten savior is some how second-rate or false. This naturally leads to problems. So, how do you expect to get wholeness out of a blender?

TM: Okay, I think I’m following you. But I have to ask-- what does this have to do with training?

PC: Stick with me and I’ll connect the dots. The religions that don’t teach with a “God is this or that” model are often referred to as adult religions. This is because their primary teaching is to take responsibility for your own actions. They essentially teach that the only purgatory is the one we create in our relationships to self and other. This philosophy is aligned to my view that the spiritual person is one who takes responsibility for their actions moment to moment.

As these adult religions prosper, producing more self-responsible people that do indeed cultivate inner-peace and share it with those around them, awareness rises. Interestingly, philosophies and religions such as Taoism, Buddhism, Yoga, Kung fu, etc., often have an integrated approach including mental training, dietary recommendations, and an exercise component.

On those grounds alone, they are more likely to cultivate inner peace and healthy autonomy than religions that are based primarily on a collection of other peopleâ??s ideas that lack a diet and exercise component. In fact, some, like Zen, or Sufism (the mystical branch of Islam) do not have a “book”; their teachings are based on a practice above and beyond any doctrine.

I feel that the shifting mind-set of the public toward one inclusive of a dialectical approach to life will naturally bring with it a greater awareness of the importance of taking responsibility for your “self.” That includes"caring for yourself" Naturally, as we love ourselves more wholesomely, we share that with others. My mother was a yogi and raised me with an awareness of my mental, physical, and diet as inclusive of living a wholesome life. I wish more kids today were blessed to have a mother that wise.

TM: So this new self-awareness, as a spiritual and physical being is what you consider to be the next big thing in our field?

PC: I see it happening now. There are now comprehensive conferences available for exercise professionals that center entirely on body-mind relationships. For example, I was recently a presenter at Inner Idea, a body-mind conference for exercise professionals and my approach was well received. Additionally, many of the people leading the way in the body-mind movement, and the adult religions or philosophies are avid exercisers. These people are generally healthier, and therefore, can "feel themselves better.’

This gives them the ability to feel the changes in their inner-state as they manage themselves in relationships more effectively. All these changes come to the gym with them. Now they exercise like they always did, but instead of trying to be bigger, more powerful or cooler than the next guy, they do it because they want to share a way of living with people that’s more conducive to cultivating well-being.

(In Awe) Finally, someone agrees with me… Definitely going to read some more from Paul.

Yes, he is totally right, integrating the rigid abrahemic lectures into modern life or science is far more difficult then say, daoism or buddhism.

Since I believe Paul Chek is well aware of how crazy this sounds to the establishment, who in turn, however, sees no problem in voting for politicians who enjoy a “personal relationship” with Jesus, I can only applaud the man for having cojones.

If politics and christianity go together so well, why not squatting and spirituality?

Or from a different angle-
A modern Jesus would definitely try out eastern meditation.

Smart move leaving this one out of the article TC, Paul is always “interesting” and gives everyone plenty to talk about, but these issues tend to throw gas onto fire and derail the conversation (as you obviously know).

Calling all Straw-Men, Your leader has arrived. Yay, Paul Chek is better than everyone because he doesnt lift to be bigger, he does it to “cultivate well being.” Did he consider that many of us do it to better ourselves and motivate ourselves, and not be be cooler than the next guy?

I wont even touch his medical nonsense.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

Or from a different angle-
A modern Jesus would definitely try out eastern meditation.
[/quote]

Because an all-knowing God didnt know about it back then? (I kid, I kid…but seriously)

Paul does neglect to mention that there are more contemplative branches of Christianity, and Judaism. Contemplative Christianity has been with us since the beginning. Prayer and meditation. Fasting and other dietary habits, along with a strong work (physical) ethic.

Judaism has Kabbalah. Although I think that an element of new age has hijacked it to some degree of late, the core of Kabbalah is quite fascinating and enlightening. Their version of creation parallels M theory (String Theroy) down to the requirements of 10 starting dimensions, six of which would have to collapse into one almost instantly.

By reading the overall tone, I would suspect that Paul has studied the works of Ken Wilber,(or at least Carol Graves and Don Beck) who I recommend to anyone interested in looking at such topics at a deeper level. For those that read any of my later posts in “is Ayn Rand reslevant” will remember that I tried to give a brief overview of some of his work. I for one would be glad to see a little more of this type of information in future articles.

BTW, I believe TC is located in Colorado. Ken Wilber also lives in the Denver area.

I’m not a psychologist, but I am pretty sure this guy has a few problems.

I am fairly well-read in orthodox Christian theology - and I can say for certainty that virtually everything he says about the Christian faith is a bunch of pot-boiled nonsense that he read in some “new age” book.

Moreover, he refutes himself over and over.

For example, he implies that “new agers” don’t divide the world dualistically, but then he feels perfectly comfortable dividing the world’s religions into the dualistic and non-dualistic.

OR this sort of thing: [quote]"Ideas always create limitation – or division, because for every “is,” there must be an “isn’t.” [/quote]

Presumably, here^^ he is exempting his own “ideas”? Including this ^^ particular one? LOL.

Historically he’s off his rocker: if the 20th century saw the dissolution of monotheistic religions - and monotheistic religions are responsible for war - why was the 20th century the bloodiest in human history?

Have the nations of the world that practice the so-called “nondualistic” religions been free of human pain, suffering, cruelty, warfare? What a hoax.

Funny, because that’s the exact question I would ask a new ager/pantheist.

His comments regarding “evil” and “dualism” are hopelessly confused.

He decries anyone telling him about what the truth is, yet he then goes on to teach what HIS truth is. In other words, rather than listen to great thinkers such as St. Augustine and St. Aquinas who have stood the test of time for thousands of years, we should listen to an unqualified crackpot who not only seems to have gleaned his understanding of Christianity from a few stray quotes in “new age” books, but also seems to have derived his “philosophy” from the “new age” inanities found on this morning’s Yogi tea packet. And we should listen and follow HIS truth instead. Yeah. Okay. LOL.

He should stick to whatever he does best. Not sure what that is.

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Historically he’s off his rocker: if the 20th century saw the dissolution of monotheistic religions - and monotheistic religions are responsible for war - why was the 20th century the bloodiest in human history? [/quote]

Crap.
20th Century saw the rise of religiously inspired ideology.
Nazi soldiers marched into battle thinking of themselves as christian soldiers, the motto “god with us” edged into their belts.
Also, an unparalleled explosion of new weapons and soldier material easily explains the numbers.
The ‘thirty years war’ had a much, much larger (negative) impact on involved population then WW2, although in absolut numbers it looks far tamer.

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
In other words, rather than listen to great thinkers such as St. Augustine [/quote]
Because it’s sound to torture heretics, burning them is a mercy

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
and St. Aquinas [/quote]
because woman are crippled men and only good for reproducing

Anytime a specific religion comes up, a pissing contest of sorts will result. I think the bigger idea here is that the human organism has not only the capacity, but truly the need for some spiritual component. In order to even think about approaching self actualization, a person needs to have some sort of spiritual connectivity between themselves and the world around them.

Take someone like Jim Wendler, whom I have great admiration for. Most people would say that he is not a spiritual person at all, but I see spirituality in the way he has spoken about simplifying life by having clearly defined priorities. Finding a space wherein we feel at peace with ourselves and our world should be a big part of why we train to begin with.

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

Historically he’s off his rocker: if the 20th century saw the dissolution of monotheistic religions - and monotheistic religions are responsible for war - why was the 20th century the bloodiest in human history?

[/quote]

Technology. Specifically, advances in transportation and weaponry. In the 20th century man gained the ability to reach and subsequently harm larger numbers of people than ever before.

[quote]jyoshida27 wrote:
(In Awe) Finally, someone agrees with me… Definitely going to read some more from Paul.[/quote]

Since this is your first post, I must note you’ve never shared your views.

Perhaps Paul Chek has aquired the ablilty to read minds?

spooky music

If that is the case, please excuse me I have some, uh, evidence to get rid of

*edited, spelling lol

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Historically he’s off his rocker: if the 20th century saw the dissolution of monotheistic religions - and monotheistic religions are responsible for war - why was the 20th century the bloodiest in human history? [/quote]

Crap.
20th Century saw the rise of religiously inspired ideology.
[/quote]

NO! Ideology arose during the 19th century as a secular alternative to religion. “New Age” as a religious movement was well under way by the 1880’s. Major ideologies of the last century have been overwhelmingly hostile to Christianity.

They might have had this, but all Christian Churches in the 3rd Reich were required to pledge allegience to the State. Many were required to display copies of Mein Kampf as well. The Nazis were Socialists first and foremost.

Gripe: Don’t drag out a 400 year-old war to discuss the modern attributes of religions. Christianity is not monolithic by any stretch of the imagination (you’d get bad vertigo in an African Adventist church). This is exactly the same fallacious thinking that Islamists use when discussing the Crusades as a basis for their behavior. To be succinct, these actions were done a long time ago in a different country by people with a different religion who I don’t like. The net effect of the Thirty Years War was a nearly total change in attitudes both towards religion in general and the perception of its place in society.

The last Western country that claimed itself to be Christian was Spain and that was annihilated by Napoleon in the 1808 Penninsular War. The resulting Spanish Constitution afterwards of 1812 is one of the most important Liberal documents penned after the US Constitution. When people talk in hushed conspiratorial tones about Christians in politics they seem to miss that fact. Bottom line: As long as any group plays by the law of the land they should be left alone. It is not the place of the State to judge the merits of religions. I don’t care what religion you are, if you are an idiot I’m not voting for you. Simple as that.

And as always, I could be full of shit…

– jj

P.S. I’ve done oriental martial arts for 30 years and way up the food chain in a system that has a famous Traditional Oriental Medicine component (you can go to clinics that are part of the national health care system in Japan which are run out of our dojos). Mssr. Chek’s comments are his discovery of spirituality, which he badly confounds with religions. Religions are political organizations and are subject to all the flaws of every other human institution. It is astonishingly naive to think that Hindus, Buddhists or any of these other older religions have anything but as checkered a past as the Church. You want a play by play of Buddhist political intrigues in Japan and China? The Christian Church is downright tame – there is a reason we think every Buddhist monk can kick your ass and it wasn’t because he was on some spiritual journey. Chek simply echos the progressive belief that the Church is bad, missing the fact that it is one of several such organizations.

I’m going to have to mull whether to hop into this discussion because believe me, I have a lot to say and very little of it will be music to New Ager’s ears…

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
I’m not a psychologist, but I am pretty sure this guy has a few problems.

I am fairly well-read in orthodox Christian theology - and I can say for certainty that virtually everything he says about the Christian faith is a bunch of pot-boiled nonsense that he read in some “new age” book.

Moreover, he refutes himself over and over.

For example, he implies that “new agers” don’t divide the world dualistically, but then he feels perfectly comfortable dividing the world’s religions into the dualistic and non-dualistic.

OR this sort of thing: [quote]"Ideas always create limitation – or division, because for every “is,” there must be an “isn’t.” [/quote]

Presumably, here^^ he is exempting his own “ideas”? Including this ^^ particular one? LOL.

Historically he’s off his rocker: if the 20th century saw the dissolution of monotheistic religions - and monotheistic religions are responsible for war - why was the 20th century the bloodiest in human history?

Have the nations of the world that practice the so-called “nondualistic” religions been free of human pain, suffering, cruelty, warfare? What a hoax.

Funny, because that’s the exact question I would ask a new ager/pantheist.

His comments regarding “evil” and “dualism” are hopelessly confused.

He decries anyone telling him about what the truth is, yet he then goes on to teach what HIS truth is. In other words, rather than listen to great thinkers such as St. Augustine and St. Aquinas who have stood the test of time for thousands of years, we should listen to an unqualified crackpot who not only seems to have gleaned his understanding of Christianity from a few stray quotes in “new age” books, but also seems to have derived his “philosophy” from the “new age” inanities found on this morning’s Yogi tea packet. And we should listen and follow HIS truth instead. Yeah. Okay. LOL.

He should stick to whatever he does best. Not sure what that is.

[/quote]

Close minded much??

You cannot discuss No duality, the ego and intellectual mind NEED duality, so does communication, its about seeing and understanding no duality

Its wisdom, you know those things that one day you realise and suddenly you have a new point of view on the world?? but if you would go and tell someone, it wouldnt have the same meaning to them, its self discovery

This is some deep shit!!

I was brought up heavily catholic but have been totally disillusioned with all forms of religion and God. I live by my own ‘religion’ now and that includes just living in the now, staying healthy and enjoying life. I have also now take responsibility for my life and all the outcomes that have come out of it instead of blaming anyone else for my misfortune or any negative outcomes.

I can’t wait for all the religous nutbags to get a hold of this thread, it will make for some good reading.

Just wait maybe Newbatman will grace us with his wisdom and knowledge.

[quote]BossKean wrote:
Take someone like Jim Wendler, whom I have great admiration for. Most people would say that he is not a spiritual person at all, but I see spirituality in the way he has spoken about simplifying life by having clearly defined priorities. Finding a space wherein we feel at peace with ourselves and our world should be a big part of why we train to begin with.[/quote]

This is a good observation and something I’ve noticed myself about Wendler. Wendler’s philosophy, if you can call it that, really comes through in the 5/3/1 book.

Oh brother, really? My religion can beat up your religion? Abrahamic religions are dualistic and so limited, new age, Buddhism are the way to go? What ever, he’s full of shit and I’ll be happy to debate him on the topic anytime. “Adult” religions? My ass.
Smart move putting it here.

I like the term adult religion there is something very childish about saying “if you don’t believe what we believe then you’re not going to heaven”.

I’d be interested to hear about the “political intrigues of Buddhism in china and japan” jj-dude. Most of what I’ve heard of Buddhism had either a very PC US public education vagueness or the inherent bias of user generated media. Any topics I should look into?

I would agree that the majority of wars in the 20th century were secular in nature. I’m definitely open to correction when it comes to this area.
Most seemed to be conflict based on desire for land/influence or economic power. After WWII it could be said there was a political philosophy difference. It could be argued that it was the democratic West (christianity) vs. socialist atheism, as it was purported to be in propaganda, but that seems pretty weak.
Most of the minor conflicts around the world fell into those two categories too.

The religious terrorism and fanaticism that comes first to mind really seems more political and economic to me too. I would say that religion is mainly used as a tool to attract and convince fanatics to achieve political/economic ends.

Then the question is, are those subscribing to monotheistic religions more easily convinced to fight?

Maybe the idea could be broadened to say (not interpretting Chek, more building off his ideas) that conflict is more likely to occur when you feel tied down to a particular religion or doctrine. The alternative would be to form an individual philosophy/spirituality based on your interpretations of the various messages presented in world religions?

All that being (poorly) said, I like a lot of what he had to say, not that it was incredibly original. He seems to just be marketing a spark notes version of a variety of New Age philosophies. I don’t see a whole lot wrong with that, since he doesn’t seem to be claiming to be the original source. None of those ideas presented are particularly harmful (well some would claim they result in eternal damnation).

The fear of western medicine was a little odd to me though. I think he might just be being overdramatic to emphasize a point. His speech about the 4 doctors had some obvious points. I dislocated my elbow and ruptured my UCL. I’m pretty sure my surgeon did a lot better job that Dr. happy would have.