March/April 2005

POWER, COMPASSION and GENREOSITY

An interview with Carolyn Myss, Ph.D.

by Ravi Dykema

We work to improve our personal power, and we work hard. We dig and toil in therapy, we hone our communication skills, we purify our bodies and learn to rein in our emotions. But in the end, why are we going to so much trouble? Carolyn Myss, Ph.D., author of Invisible Acts of Power (Simon & Schuster, 2004) says if we’re not using our personal power to empower others through generosity and compassion, if we aren’t moving toward becoming channels for divine grace, we’re not fulfilling our sacred missions.

Myss, an internationally known lecturer and pioneer in energy medicine, has also written three consecutive national best-sellers, Anatomy of the Spirit (Three Rivers Press, 1997), Why People Don't Heal and How They Can (Three Rivers Press, 1998) and Sacred Contracts (Three Rivers Press, 2003). Here, she talks to Nexus publisher Ravi Dykema about how we can become channels for grace, power and miracles through kind, compassionate and generous actions-—invisible acts of power.

RD: You grew up Roman Catholic?

CM: I sure did, and I liked it. I’m not one of those scared Catholics. Which is not to say that I don’t have issues with the politics of the church; I do, but I separate the politics of the church, the politics of Rome, from the mysticism of Catholicism. The mysticism and the mystical tradition of Catholicism is a whole different lineage and history. The tradition of Catholicism encompasses the Madonna tradition, the phenomenon of the saints, the fact that there has never been a discontinuation of apparitions, of the establishment of centers of healing, of miracles, of fountains of healing, like Lourdes and Fatima, of nurturing from heaven. And Catholicism is for everybody, not just for Catholics. The word “Catholic” means universal. There is no other religion like that, one that provides healing for the global community.

RD: What do you mean by the Catholic church’s politics?

CM: It’s the rule that women can’t be priests, that priests can’t marry, the absence of female involvement. It’s a very, very old world operation; it’s an archaic corporate organization in that regard.

RD: So you don’t think the church itself incorporates the mystical element?

CM: Well, they can’t get away from the mystical element. It’s the only church that has held a place for the Madonna, the Goddess. No other Christian church has held the Goddess. All the rest of them disposed of her, but the Catholic church has maintained and honored her. For that reason, the Catholic church, for me, is an awesome presentation of Christian divinity.
The politics of the church, however, reflect a dominant male era, the patriarchy. There is no difference between the politics of the church and the patriarchy found in every other tradition, in government or in religion, in any other country, in any other tradition. Whether it’s Buddhism or Hinduism or Islam, women have no place. That is simply a product of a 2000-year-long era, maybe even longer. It was not an era of women in power. So how could there be an exception in the Roman Catholic church?

But you see that era chipping down in a thousand different ways: in all of the church’s sexual crises, in something as coincidental and polar as the best-selling novel, The DaVinci Code. If the thesis presented in The DaVinci Code had come through a theologian, he or she would have been slaughtered. But because it comes through fiction, people can chat about it. Was Jesus married? Were there offspring? Was it Mary Magdalene who stands behind him in DaVinci’s Last Supper? Who knows? Because it’s fiction, it’s not threatening. We can chat about it. Human beings love mystery and they love secret societies. There is nothing a human being loves more than being part of a secret society, because there’s power in them.

RD: Power in the form of magic?

CM: Power in the form of magic is certainly a part of it. That’s what the Free Masons were about, and the mystery schools. They all suggest alchemy is a form of magic, and they incorporate initiation into sacred rights. What were they doing behind those closed doors? It leaves the imagination to fill in the blanks. And the imagination of amateurs will always find the devil’s playground. They’ll always fill it in with magicians, the magi. If you leave it to an amateur’s empty space and imagination, they’ll always go the way of the shadow.

RD: An amateur as opposed to...

CM: An amateur as opposed to a master. The great masters would say, “Don’t throw pearls before swine.” That is to say, don’t take a great truth and put it in the hands of an amateur, because he or she won’t know how to handle it. The true spiritual alchemists wanted people to think they were about turning lead into gold, that they were like madmen in caves, trying to figure out how to do that. In truth, they held the principles of what turning lead into gold meant. As Buddha knew in the wonderful traditions of transformation, lead was the body in form and gold was the spirit. The transformation, the alchemy, is about the journey, the discipline of the soul. In the transfomation, you are, like Buddha, able to pull your spirit out of the illusion of physical matter, and understand that gold was the presence of spirit.

So to turn lead into gold was to retrieve the authority lead had over your spirit. Spiritual alchemy is the ability to manage your spirit, so that nothing outside of yourself can command your spirit to leave you, because you see that nothing has power. That’s what Buddha means by illusion—nothing outside of you has power. When Pontius Pilate said to Jesus, “Say something. Don’t you realize I have your life in my hands?” Jesus said, “No, you misunderstand. Last night I said you would do this; you are working for me. You have no power. Whether you beat me, insult me, hurt me, you cannot break my spirit. You can break my body, but not my spirit.”

The earth has no authority over a soul. That’s why Jesus said to his disciples, “Haven’t I taught you anything? Haven’t I taught you how to heal? Healing is not a trick; it’s not even a miracle. You can do all these things and more, if you understand that thought goes into form at the speed of light when your spirit is fully present. It is not a miracle. It is the nature of turning energy into matter.” Jesus also says, “Women, release your guilt. Bring your spirit into present time, and energy goes into matter at your command. Hold your spirit steady.” That’s alchemy.

But if you were to tell these truths to an amateur, to someone in shadow, how would they use it? Always in the darkness. So the masters knew the secret: it was better the world thinks you’re an idiot; better people think you’re a fool.

RD: So how do you avoid throwing pearls before swine?

CM: Here’s an example: one of the reasons why I haven’t been slaughtered by the medical world is because I’ve never tried to convert them. It’s never been my desire to go after them, or to make them believe in what I do. That’s not my role. I don’t care what they believe. That would be casting pearls before a swine, because I know that if the medical world believes in what they do, they will not believe what I believe.

Power gained by collision is just going to create locked horns. That’s ridiculous. Why would I want to do that? Instead, I set about my journey, which is simply to be fully in what I am, what I teach, and what I do by integrity, and move forward in that department, rather than threaten what’s already been done. My job is not to go backwards to that world of established power, but instead to go forward. That’s how you avoid casting pearls before swine.

If you go to someone who’s had a five-sensory experience of creation, you cannot tell them they did not have that experience. And you can’t tell them that that experience of creation is wrong. What you can do is go forward and present an example to a novice audience that is trying to learn about creation.

RD: In your book you said, “I wish I could convince others to have faith in this immeasurable invisible force that surrounds and protects us.” So, here’s you chance. You’re in front of 150,000 Nexus readers. Can you convince me to have faith in this immeasurable invisible force?

CM: I don’t know that I can convince you, but I can talk to you about it, beginning with saying there is absolutely nothing I believe in more than this absolute presence. My frustration—and it has become a huge one—is that I’ve run out of effective language. What I can talk about, that I hope people can relate to, is that everyone has a fundamental dissatisfaction with his or her life. No one will ever be truly content. You might reach a temporary harbor of contentment, but the gods won’t let you stay there.

So why is interior discontentment universal? Because you find the universe within our universal discontentment. We find each other within the blissful state of divine darkness, as well as the blissful state of divine light. It’s because we all share a part in the paradox of mysterious discontent; we share an inherent fear of divine intimacy, while having an unyielding passion to make that connection. We share an absolute need to find a power greater than ourselves, which is why, at the ego level, we become consumers of everything outside of ourselves.

RD: We think “stuff” is the power?

CM: Yes, it’s the ego’s level of the spiritual journey. “Give me more, more, more, more, more.” And, ironically, the soul wants less, less, less, less, less. That’s the paradox. Wherever the ego goes, the soul goes the opposite direction.

RD: Does the “less, less, less” mean being free from wants and desires?

CM: I don’t think we should even try to be free from wants and desires. I think that’s an old-world notion. I think we should love and enjoy things of the earth, and I think we should absolutely enjoy pleasure of every kind, whether it’s sexual or physical or a beautiful home or financial abundance. But the challenge is to manage your spirit so that you never compromise it for anything of the earth, so that it doesn’t matter whether or not you have those things of the earth. The trick is, if the material becomes more important than your soul, then you’re losing your spirit.

RD: So you disagree with the tradition of renunciation...

CM: Absolutely. I think it’s archaic, ascetic pain that’s equal to the old Catholic practice of beating yourself up. I don’t believe it when people say, “I don’t need anything from the material world.” That’s absolute monastic nonsense. It’s like denying your body.

RD: But the premise in Vedanta or Jana yoga is that one can achieve true seeing when he or she is no longer caught up in desire; renunciation helps us detach from worldly desires.

CM: For some people, maybe that’s the perfect thing. But in a sense, being a renunciate is a very selfish life. It’s all about yourself. All you do is caretake yourself, your own needs, your own this and that. It’s very self-focused. Where are other people in the world of the renunciate? They’re nowhere, because if you’re a renunciate, it’s all about you, your own renunciation, you, you, you. Now, maybe that’s a perfect choice for them. But someone’s got to be out there caretaking the rest of the world, the people who can’t care for themselves. Renunciates don’t do that. I certainly haven’t seen them at the bedsides of the sick and the wounded and the hungry. Where are they? Busy focusing on themselves, and pushing the rest of the world away. Where’s the compassion in that?

RD: So you think a person can satisfy desires without sacrificing the soul?

CM: I think we’re evolving into a time when people are becoming mystics without monasteries. I think of when the Dalai Lama was forced to leave Tibet in 1959, and then Vatican II from 1962 to 1965 (the creation of the Second Vatican Council by Pope John XXIII, which instituted sweeping reforms in the Catholic church’s traditions and laws). While these two events may seem unrelated, let’s say we look at it from an archetypal, historic, mystical perspective. These two events were a yin and yang; when the Dalai Lama was forced out of Tibet, with him came the breakthrough of Eastern philosophy, and the beauty of those traditions began to pour into the Western world. That was a breakthrough. Shortly after that, Thomas Merton introduced Eastern philosophy dead center into Catholicism. Then here comes the Pope, John XXIII, who says, “You know what? You guys start saying the mass in your own language.” That may seem like no big deal. But you know what? It is a big deal to not have a mediator between you and divinity. All of a sudden, the Catholic church brought grace direct, and the ordinary mortal could hear what only the ordained, those schooled in Latin, had heard before.

These events began to build a bridge between the East and the West; at the same time, all the books and teachings that were never allowed to penetrate into the public became available. So within a few years, ordinary mortals who were never allowed to study theology, women who could never have gone to graduate school in a Jesuit school, were reading sacred texts on Christology, demonology, exorcism and more.

RD: Because they were no longer in Latin?

CM: Partly, but also because with Vatican II there came a certain leniency and acceptance, especially of women. At this time, as the gap was being bridged between East and West, a synthesis was beginning to take place. Meditation invaded Christianity. Certain Christian things invaded Buddhism and Hinduism...

RD: Such as?

CM: Well, I think there was a greater understanding of the principles of love and brotherhood and service. For example, Mother Theresa in India demonstrated the fundamental principle of Christianity, which is service. She said, “Don’t be afraid to touch these lepers. You won’t hold them? Give them to me.” The principle of Christianity is you don’t get to God unless you serve others. It’s not about serving yourself first. Either you serve others, or you don’t even bother knocking on the door.

Now I’m not here pushing Christianity. I am devoted to Buddhism. I am devoted to Krishna. Wherever there’s truth, you’ll see me on my knees. But I’ve entered into a renewed study of Christian mysticism and you’re catching me in the middle of it. Originally, renunciation was thought to be the way. “You want to be like Christ? Go to the monastery. Go be all by yourself. Take care of yourself and renounce the world.” Those days are over. All these teachings evolve us, and the new model is to become a strong enough spirit that you can go into the world and still live in the illusion while having an open heart. That’s spiritual evolution.

RD: How you can tell whether someone is evolving on his or her spiritual journey? I’ve heard that if someone has been following a spiritual path for a long time, he or she will seek to serve others. If someone is still caught up in finding themselves or actualizing their own consciousness, that’s a sign that it’s not a genuine spiritual path. What are your views on that?

CM: I think when a person moves into a spiritual awakening, he or she goes through stages. The first stage is revolution. The rebel is born, and the person says, “The old world doesn’t fit.” In order to get out of the old world, you have to revolt; you have to find it revolting, or you won’t go. When your personal heart wakes up, your tribal heart has to die. Then there’s an involution; after you revolt, after you decide what you don’t want, then you set out to decide what you do want. After that, after the involution, comes the evolution. That’s the part where somebody comes home with prayer beads, announcing they’re going to an ashram, or they’re fasting, or they’re becoming a monk.

At that point, a person needs to become a narcissist for a while. They have to let the world know they’ve changed, so they put their costume on—their robes, their beads and crystals—to say, “See what I’ve become?” People do that because they want the world to respond to their new self, and they also want to challenge the world. “Come on. Come at me. Let me show you how much wiser I am; let me show you what a better spirit I am.” They’re pulling a sword out.

But it’s only when you can go invisibly that you have your spirit in its proper place. When you don’t have to tell somebody about you, that’s when you have true power. True power goes in disguise; it’s invisible. Why would you want to wear your spirituality on your sleeve? I would never walk down the street and let someone see all my patches, that my heart is so deeply Buddhist and Christian. Who would do such a foolish thing?

RD: But you’re saying that at a certain stage, that’s precisely what people do.

CM: That’s right. You have to go through that stage. But you also have to realize for yourself why you’re really doing it. Are you still in the rebel stage? Are you doing it for attention? And are you ready to release that need for narcissim? Can you cross the bridge from visible to invisible? That’s when you start to move into evolution, when you can get rid of the trappings. So it’s revolution-involution-narcissism-evolution. And then comes revelation, when you get rid of the trappings altogether, and your interior simply connects.

RD: So to whom are you addressing the message in your new book?

CM: I’m addressing it to the whole group, the whole process. The first level of generosity, I realized, is very public. “Did you see me there?” “I give for this and to that.” “Plaques here donated by.” And that’s fine. It’s all fine. But it’s really very not difficult to give someone a fish. What’s difficult is to cross the bridge and actually teach someone to fish. Then you are empowering them, and it’s an invisible act of power.

What’s amazing is to be able to say, “Here’s a fish. But let me tell you something. I’m going to put a pole in your hand, and teach you how to do this yourself. I’m going to put self-esteem in your belly. I’ll start you out with a unit of pride and power, and you’re going to have to grow it from there. Let me show you what that feels like.” Very few people can do that. Here you have all these people who are training to be healers, but what does that mean?

People want to be able to have an intuitive ability to heal, but what does that mean? It means that from 9 to 5, while I’m working, I’m going to be really intuitive, because then I get to be really famous. So at 5:01, do I become non-intuitive? You think you can turn that off, that when you walk out of your office, suddenly you’re a non-intuitive? That when you’re with somebody, and you sense, “I am judging you harshly, and you can feel it. Now what do I do? I have a spirituality that says judgment is not right, and I am judging you, and I am watching, feeling, sensing, intuiting that my judgment is penetrating you and it is hurting you. I can choose to stop this, but I’m not going to, because I want to hurt you, because it’s controlling and I want the lead in this relationship.” That’s where most people still are.

RD: By not seeing it, I suppose?

CM: No, they see it. You know how I know they see it? People write me and tell me so. And you know what they write about most? Their regrets. If I tell a group of people, “I want you to make a list of every single kind thing you’ve ever done, said, thought or felt in your lifetime,” most people’s eyeballs get real big—like, “What? Are you kidding?”And I say to them, “See, you can’t even remember all the kindnesses you have done in this world, and I hope you never do, because there are so many of them, and because it wouldn’t even occur to you to remember your kindnesses. But how many of you can remember your regrets?”

Everyone’s hands go up. And when I ask, “Do you think you could remember most of your regrets,” most people say, “Oh, yeah.”
Now, why do you think that is, that you can remember most of your regrets? And of all those regrets, how many are from experiences that were no longer than three or five seconds? Of course, most of us have huge regrets, like, “I would have raised my child differently.” Let’s say that 30 percent of your regrets falls into that category of big regrets. But for most people, the majority of their regrets come from failing to follow what I call intuitive hits—like, “I’m feeling that I’m judging you. I know you feel it. And if I wasn’t, I would say this kind thing to you I’m feeling like I should say. But I don’t want to say it.” The regret is that they knew they should have made a different choice; they were conscious of it. A regret comes from making a conscious choice to do something other than what you are being intuitively directed to do. When you are someone who claims to be an intuitive, and you make a choice to ignore your intuitive guidance for self-serving reasons, that’s a serious regret.

Part of what I wanted to share in this book is that there is a relationship between the health of your intuition and your role as a healer, your self-esteem, your generosity; they’re all woven into the same interior carpet. Also, your capacity to grow as an intuitive is completely integrated into your ability to be a truly generous person, and that, at the end of the day, the finest act of generosity is your capacity to use your intuitive voice to empower another person. That is the most healing thing you can do.

RD: Can you give me an example of what that looks like?

CM: Releasing the need to control. Empowering someone by releasing the need to control them, so that they are free to follow the guidance they need to follow and to fulfill their own destiny. Admitting to yourself, “I am controlling this person because I am afraid that if they follow their own guidance, it won’t include me.” That’s a biggie.

When I bring this up in class, that’s the one most people will say, “Yeah, that’s the one that scares me.” A woman wants her husband to support her spiritual path, but she’s afraid that if she were to support her husband’s spiritual path, he might start having an interior spiritual life and going through a series of interchanges that would cause him to leave a serious income-earning profession. It may cause her to go to work. It may cause him to go away on retreats without her. It’s very interesting how difficult it is to want to be empowered, but not be able to return that gift.

RD: You seem to see generosity as a key ideal for people to achieve, so that it not only benefits others but also themselves.

CM: Absolutely. I think generosity, if it’s understood correctly, is a journey unto itself. Generosity is an instinct. I think we have to work at not being generous. It’s an instinct to pick up something for someone. It’s an instinct to hold a door open for someone. But like all instincts, the next stage is allowing it to be conscious. With conscious generosity, you have to become aware of not being generous and why you’re not being generous. You have to ask yourself, “Why can’t I share?” “Why am I selfish?” Or “What are my motives for being generous?” You have to look at the shadow side. And then you have to realize that that journey into the shadow side of generosity has a great deal to do with your awakening as a healer, as an intuitive.

Growing into healing is not just about going out and studying with a healer. It’s not just about practicing yoga. It’s also about looking into whether or not you can empower somebody, whether or not someone else’s empowerment is a matter of discomfort for you. We have to get to the point where that principle flows through me, flows into you, flows back to me, where it really is all as one. That’s not an easy principle to incarnate. It’s an easy principle to love, and it goes into us like silk. But it’s one of the most challenging to get to. To actually live that is to live one of the most powerful principles of God. What I’ve learned in doing this book is that it is one of the greatest principles of the spirit.