Religious Science’s Biggest (R)evolutionary: You won’t believe who it is
BY HARV BISHOP
Religious Science teachings were never written in stone.
In the last two years of his life, Ernest Holmes, founder of the Science of Mind philosophy, found a new passion: teaching the works of the famed Indian sage Sri Aurobindo.
Holmes’s seminal book “The Science of Mind,” which has helped millions learn to how change their thinking and change their life, had been published 30 some years earlier. He saw Science of Mind as a philosophy that was in its beginning stages and open to new truths. He readily embraced Aurobindo’s view of evolutionary emergents in consciousness as well as in the physical world.
While I knew of Holmes fascination with Aurobindo, I did not know how deeply it went until last week when I interviewed the extraordinary Obadiah Harris. During the last two years of his life, Holmes mentored Harris, who went on to become a Religious Science minister before setting out on his own path, including a stint at Aurobindo’s ashram.
Studying Aurobindo’s evolutionary view of spiritually and meditative practices led to major new spiritual awakenings for Holmes, says Harris.
Holmes’s experience of “Divine joy” went well beyond the largely sunny disposition that earned him the nickname “Happy,” Harris says. “When you find a Divine joy in life that is impervious to sorrows and challenges there you will find your immortal Sprit,” says Harris.
“Holmes missed his wife after her death and there was sorrow” says Harris, “but he had found a secret capacity for joy. He could laugh at anything in an appreciative manner.”
Harris said that when the Religious Science organization split into two separate organizations in the 1950s “[Holmes] accepted it” and it did not affect his capacity for joy. (The organizations reunited as Centers for Spiritual Living in 2011, more than 50 years after Holmes died).
Harris recalls Holmes being approached by a board member of Founder’s Church of Religious Science, the first church created to teach Religious Science dedicated in 1960. The board member was upset with Holmes for teaching classes based on Aurobindo’s writings, as opposed to teaching only the lessons found in “The Science of Mind.”
“Ernest,” the man said, “this class undermines the church!” He went on to give several reasons why teaching Aurobindo’s work in a Religious Science church was not appropriate. Holmes stopped him with one sentence:
“I am the church!”
This is important because almost 60 years later, another rift is becoming apparent in the church. Some believe Religious Science should only teach the spiritual principles explored in the “The Science of Mind,” referred to simply as the “textbook” by adherents. Teach people how to think, not what to think, they say. Prayer alone will change consciousness and create a more loving world. Holmes himself stated, that Religious Science is a start to a new evolution of consciousness that could lead to world peace, but does that evolution require action as well as prayer? Others want to include principles, prayer and taking action to create a world that works for everyone. They view issues of racial and gender equality and the environment as a moral imperative. What do you think?
“I am the church!” could be seen as authoritarian coming from someone other than Holmes with his radical openness and inclusivity.
It is invigorating to remember the evolutionary fire that burned at the center of Holmes’ soul. His embrace of Aurobindo’s evolutionary spirituality, his soul-to-soul connection with Harris, then an innovative evangelical preacher who had never heard of Religious Science, among many examples, demonstrates an openness we can learn from today.
My interview with Harris about his new book, “The Simple Road: A Handbook for the Contemporary Seeker,” the lessons he learned from Holmes, and Harris’s own mystical life will be in a future issue of Guide for Spiritual Living: Science of Mind magazine.
Being radically inclusive, doesn’t that embody Oneness? Isn’t that the very core of Science of Mind? Go Dr. Holmes!
I would say yes and yes Nicki! Thanks for your comment.
very nice article
One day Sri Aurobindo will be recognized by most as the bringer of the Word that led mankind to a transformation of consciousness that lifted man to a new level of being where mind no longer reigns supreme. Namaste
Thanks Steven. Aurobindo is a treasure. It should be remembered that to Holmes “Mind” would be better translated today as universal consciousness as opposed to every day thinking mind.
Yes, and whenever I see “race consciousness” in the text, I automatically translate that for myself as “culture.”
I like the idea of adding action to the teaching and allowing for the teaching methods themselves to evolve.
Michael Beckwith has added accelerated learning techniques to teaching spiritual principles and there’s plenty of action and loving service going on @ Agape (which I think is a great model to follow)
Most “New Thought” centers I’ve visited need to find a new way to grow and evolve to attract new members because most have an aging population and very few youth engaged!
Thanks for the article
Thanks David. Agape is a wonderful place. We’ll hear from Dr. Michael and Dr. Nirvana Gayle both on the blog and in the magazine.
I very much return to Ernest Holmes stated philosophy, the Science of Mind is “Open at the top.” It is a compilation of many ideas, from many areas of study, and it is always open to new evolving ideas and revelations of Truth. Truth is ever expanding to know Truth itself much as consciousness is ever expanding to know consciousness itself. Expansion is the way of the universe, and being “open at the top,” to new awareness, new insights, new revelations of Truth, is the cornerstone, the building block of Science of Mind teachings as set forth in Ernest Holmes “The Science of Mind,” text, in which he states “We observe in creation an atomic intelligence, then a simple consciousness; after which comes a personal consciousness.” And further, “Each individual maintains his identity in Law, through his personal use of the Law, and each is drawing from Life what he thinks into it.” And so it IS.
The thing that attracted me to SOM was the lack of community imperative. Coming from an upbringing in an organization that found talking about God or Spirit difficult, but “moral justice” ok, the teaching of SOM how to think not what to think was deeply refreshing. The problem with advocacy is it creates victimhood (we must help you change because you cannot do it for yourself), and a class system of “enlightened” and “unenlightened”.
Ernest also repeatedly said “There is a Power for Good in the Universe, and YOU can USE IT”. I have had similar discussions with other SOM ministers, and to me teaching “How” to think rather than “What” to think allows the most inclusivity and unity.
Thanks for your comments Bruce. The “how” rather than the “what” question is something we will return to in future posts. And your implied point that what is defined as moral and justice can be subject to interpretation is well taken. I once covered a very vocal anti-abortion rally for a newspaper and setting aside the merits of the issue the the intensity of their moral certitude and anger at the press was frightening. I would disagree that advocacy necessarily creates victimhood. There is standing in solidarity and there is paternalism and those are two very different things. I would argue that a power for good in the universe that we can use is important but only a part of what Holmes said. Good presupposes moral ends. He believed that evolving consciousness would foster cooperation and world peace. He also said “If anyone knows anything about the Love that is all embracing, his arms will be around everyone in the world. It is all nonsense to say God is Love unless our arms are around people.” From my perspective, be that in consciousness or some combination of consciousness and action these are articulated moral goals that address inclusive visions of both the how and what dimensions.
Hi Bruce: Your comment called to mind for me an article by my friend, Cindy Wigglesworth. It may create some new ideas about how it is that our work can come FROM a place that does not see or create victimhood at all. If time and interest permit, I’d love to hear your thoughts on it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cindy-wigglesworth/empathy_b_2796460.html
Thank you for this thoughtful article. I think that Ernest Holmes would encourage each of us dedicated to the teachings of SOM to say “I am the church.” We can never forget that Ernest Holmes was a great synthesizer of truths from all spiritual practices he explored. Truth is what we are seeking in whatever form it takes and from whomever speaks it.
If we are to truly embrace openness in our teachings and philosophies, we are also to embrace the group of people who wish to stick with a more traditional teaching of the Science of Mind textbook. As a practitioner, I am trained to look only at the Absolute Truth. The Truth here is that there is no “rift in the church”. I use Ernest Holmes’ method of positive denial and say “There is no rift in the church – I see only Wholeness.” The Truth is that there are a multitude of different expressions of different points of view within the church. God is expressing in Its infinite ways. Because we are an open and embracing organization, each center gets to practice the teachings in the way that serves its congregation the best. We can all get along without needing to establish a consensus that all must follow.
When I took the Myers-Briggs personality test, my test results showed that I am the personality type known as “The Inspirer”. The test results gave the statistic that only 15% of the entire population are Inspirers! Over 50% of the population is what are known as “Traditionalists”. Their purpose in life is to ensure that traditions are carried down intact from generation to generation. Having come from a very ancient cultural background myself (Lithuanian), I understand the purpose and necessity of the folks whose purpose it is to preserve tradition.
So, to paraphrase Abraham-Hicks, we don’t need others to change in order to become who we need them to be, we need to stay focused on what our own purpose is. Those of us who are Inspirers – let’s stay focused on our job! ;->
Hi Neola,
Thanks for your call to not lose sight of the ideal in Absolute Truth.
I do agree that consensus isn’t necessarily needed in an open organization. And likewise I can see that traditionalists have a needed role. But our founder was anything but a traditionalist and in the story related by Obadiah Harris Dr. Holmes did not allow a traditionalist mind set to dictate church policy. We can presume that this gentlemen was free to skip the Aurobindo classes and content himself with the textbook, but not determine the larger direction for the church (in this instance Dr. Holmes 😉 ) Likewise with the mission statement of creating a world that works for everyone some folks flat out don’t want CSL to go in that direction, but it is now part of the churches dual mission. Being an open organization no one will need to swear to an an oath that they are changing the world. But among ministers I have talked to adherents have told them to stop addressing politics from the pulpit when they talk about justice issues. This is very analogous to the situation Dr. Holmes faced. And these differences are within congregations so I am not sure its as easy as like minded people attending a Center that fits there traditional or non-traditional views. Ways have to be found to communicate across differences. It was a reality that International and United were separated for about 50 years and there was acrimony. (An incredible irony for a church based on Oneness), but in those years something closer to Absolute Truth was manifested in 2011 though it is still a work in progress.
I’m also reminded a joke that the late and much missed Dr. Fred Vogt used to hate. Three minsters ended up in hell rather than heaven. I forget the set up, but the Religious Science minister went last and said, “It’s not hot and I’m not here.” (It’s a ‘groaner’ I know). But I do think it possible to see and work with the “reality” of the temporal moment and to know Absolute Truth at the same time.
Just a point of clarification on what the textbook actually says, and that is that we never deny conditions, we simply deny there is any spiritual truth or reality to support them. The way I make this clear to students is that we don’t bother denying the clouds — we can’t, but we refocus ourselves on the sun. And, we never doubt its existence.
Hey, Friend. Great post — love that you’re bringing lesser known information about our founder and early movement to light. It seems that what is conceived of as traditional SoM may not actually be the full story. That makes me happy.
The tensions around traditional versus progressive may not actually be that at all, methinks. I believe it’s as much about the ability to hold a both/and perspective, versus an either/or one. I notice that many of the traditionalists don’t seem to realize that we can be for individual empowerment AND collective transformation; that we can be taking a stand as an organization AND giving folks a choice around what they choose to stand for within the arena of our activism efforts. See what I mean?
One more point, isn’t it juicy that what’s traditional about our roots is actually (r)evolution?!
It’s not surprising that Holmes would be intrigued by Aurobindo–there’s a long history of cross-fertilization between Vedanta and New Thought. Vivekananda’s influence on early NT is well known, but there is a more diffuse–and in some ways more direct–influence of Vedic ideas on Holmes, and that is via Thomas Troward. Few details about Troward’s study of yoga are published, but his bio states that he learned “raja yoga” during his years in India. Troward brilliantly interpreted Vedic concepts in light of Western rationality. Of course, Troward tossed more than a soupçon of Swedenborg into the mix . . .
Evolution? Aurobindo was a great thinker but came from a real different place than Holmes. Considering that Ernest Holmes died while reading Aurobindo’s The Life Divine , perhaps it was “a sign” that it was supposed to end right there. Contrary to what Ernest taught his entire life, Aurobindo believed that Divine consciousness was imparted from above, for example, and not to all, just to a special few, like him and his disciples. Pick up a copy and ponder that one. Don’t take my word for it though. Read The Life Divine yourself, and don’t forget your dictionary and sentence diagramming instructions.
Hi Margo,
Elvis Presley died with Ernest Holmes book on his night stand. I’m not sure it is a sign of anything other than Ernest and Elvis found some spiritual solace and intellectual challenge in these respective books. To my understanding Aurbibndo did believe that there was a transformation coming to all, but that some individuals were evolving towards that consciousness now. But, for the sake of argument, let’s say your interpretation is correct. Do we throw out the work of a great thinker and say it is wholly without value if we disagree with some aspects of the teaching? Ken Wilber has argued that our spiritual insights are always interpreted through the contextual filter of our culture and life experience. Some Zen teachers were, by accounts of western students, authoritarian and ethnocentric. Do we then dismiss Zen practice? Aurobindo brought together the insights of evolutionary science and spirituality in a way that earned the respect of Jean Gebser, Michael Murphy, Ken Wilber, and Steve Mackintosh among others. Some of these folks also disagree with aspects of Aurbindo’s teaching while recognizing his contributions. It is the way of evolution. More is known now than when Aurobindo wrote and indeed than when Holmes wrote. These teachings can be held in a higher and wider embrace rather than ending right there.
I appreciate your sharing and blogging.thank you.
Teaching only what is in Holmes’ book is fundamentalist thinking It will lead to not thinking. All the wisdom in the Universe confined to one book? Absurd.
Amen to that. And I think Holmes would be the first to agree with you!
Ernest Holmes so understood the fact that new ideas were evolving and is why he said to leave it open at the top. I believe there is only one Universal Truth and it is “Oneness with all things”. I believe we are truly getting ready for a quantum leap like we’ve never experienced before and he left it open for us to move through it all with more ease and grace. We have all the tools we need and are guided in how to make the most of them if we stay open to our intuition. Love is the energy that moves mountains. My question is.”How willing are we to let go off being right, so we can see the forest for the trees?”
Dr. Holmes was so right in this, to me. He always wanted to learn more. This curiosity is the mainstay for all of us in my mind. What works for you?
this geelong seafood blog is great. geelong seafood