New Monastics Roundtable: Space Travel with Carla Burns

In this episode, we have a roundtable discussion of spiritual issues with educator Carla Burns. In Part I, we talk about how to slow down and make the ’space’ to hold complexity in our society. In Part II, we discuss the film The Martian and what it has to say about humanity and humanity’s needs. And in Part III, we explore the idea of our planet’s consciousness and how it is expressed today.


Charis Foundation

Golden Turtle Sound

Support the show

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:04):
Welcome to the new Monastics podcast, where we'll
be discussing all aspects ofthe contemplative life and
inter spirituality in thecontext of modernity. On each
episode, we will choose a topicto explore with one of today's
leading teachers are thinkers.
The New Monastics podcast is aproject of Caras Foundation for

(00:24):
new monasticism and interspirituality, which is
dedicated to the emergence of anewly conceived contemplative
life, of embodied spiritualityand sacred activism.

Speaker 2 (00:39):
Welcome to the new Monastics podcast. I'm Nall ,
co-founder of Cares Foundationand Dialogue partner for our
guests.

Speaker 3 (00:46):
And I'm Daniel, the host for the show.

Speaker 2 (00:48):
Today we've invited our friend Carla Burns for
another round table . Carla iscore faculty at Naropa
University and works for Case,the Center for Advancement of
Contemplative Education.

Speaker 4 (00:59):
Hi.

Speaker 3 (00:59):
Hi, Carla. It's so lovely to have you.

Speaker 4 (01:02):
Thanks for having me.

Speaker 3 (01:04):
So, just a refresher for the listeners on our round
table episodes. We'll each bebringing a little topic that
we've been chewing on, thinkingabout holding, and the others
will have some time to reflect,but the topics will all be a
little disparate. And with thatsaid, Carla, do you have a
topic to start us off with?

Speaker 4 (01:27):
Yes, I do. Thank you. So I was just listening to
, uh, the last podcast that youdid with one of naan and i's
colleagues, Lisa. And I wasreally inspired about all that
was shared, and especially whatwas brought up around this idea
of being able to holdcomplexity and the need to be

(01:49):
able to , uh, encountercomplexity and not go into
extremes, especially when we'retalking about spiritual
teachers and spiritualpractices and how we don't just
solidify things as right orwrong or good or bad. And
obviously that's been up notjust at Nopa University and in

(02:11):
, uh, contemplative education,but in our world in general ,
uh, there's a lot of, I wouldsay, seduction to go into This
is right or this is wrong.
Mm-hmm . And itwas definitely mentioned
around, you know, we have to beable to hold the tension and
not get swayed into solidifyinginto those things. And then I

(02:33):
was thinking about, but how dowe, how do we actually do that?
Right? Right . How do weactually begin to navigate
holding complexity and why isit that it is so easy to go
toward maybe what we would call, uh, in Buddhist terminology,
the dim light of solidificationversus more of this bright

(02:54):
light, this expansive kind ofway of being? Why do we kind of
of go into narrow thinking Hmm. And what are, what are the
things that we could doactually to be able to tolerate
ambiguity or toleratecomplexity? So obviously
there's many differentpractices that that one can
engage in, but I think for melately in this, I would say

(03:17):
radical sense, and we talkabout this a lot in
contemplative education, butjust this notion of rest, like
rest is , is practice mm-hmm . And can I
actually tolerate things likecomplexity if I don't have time
to really check out what'sgoing on for me and to be able

(03:37):
to rest my body and rest mysystem and rest my mind and be
open in my sense perceptionsand utilize, y'all talked about
technology too, but utilize thetechnology of my body that's
going to be , help me to beable to be attuned to, you
know, what is happening in thefield and to be able to hold

(04:02):
that sort of expanse. You know,I appreciated , um, for all of
you listeners out there, westarted with just a simple five
minutes of just stoppingactually before we started. And
I just noticed so much in thatjust like, whew , just stopping
and just settling so that Icould be like, well, what's,

(04:22):
what's actually here for me?
How does my heart feel rightnow? What's going on with my
belly? Can I just like clearout for a moment all the
thoughts and the ideas that Ifeel like I wanna just like
jump into this? You know? Andthat impulse to just like jump
in and have the thing to sayand have the right answers and

(04:42):
be the best person, you know, , um, , you are
the best, Carla . Oh , you'rethe best , but what is it when
I can just actually just relax.
And I do have a lot ofcuriosity around that because
even, you know, at thisuniversity that we're at, I do
feel like there's a lot ofpressure sometimes to just do

(05:04):
things very quickly. Like,let's hurry up and practice and
let's hurry up and heal and let's hurry up and solve
this and , uh, can you , uh,teach this online class in ,
uh, 15 minutes? You know? Andso I am curious about this
radical nature and can weactually live into these
spiritual values and meet thesociety that is constantly

(05:28):
wanting us to be rushed andhurried and narrow? And is that
really going to be able to helpus to encounter the complexity
of the challenges that we'refacing? So can we actually
rest? Will it actually bepossible? Can we be that
radical? So that's what Iwanted to bring to y'all today

(05:49):
to talk about.

Speaker 2 (05:51):
Hmm . Thank you.
Yeah . You know, one of thethings I hear you saying I
think is maybe that when wethink about complexity, we're
thinking about , um, a vastarray of information and a vast
array of things existing sideby side . As they say in
Buddhism, the 10,000 things,the 10,000 things are all

(06:13):
present together and it's tightthere, you know, everything is
touching. And one of thereasons we can't hold
complexity is becauseeverything's bunched. You know,
we're thinking of complexity asthe bunching, but we can't hold
complexity because we'rebunching. So everything's too
tight. Uh, our minds are tootight. Our perception of

(06:37):
everything is claustrophobic.
And I hear you saying that ifwe could address the tightness
issue in our ownconsciousness, then there might
be room around things. Theremight be room to appreciate the
complexity instead of justfeeling claustrophobic by it
and being driven by thatclaustrophobia into

(06:59):
instantaneous reactivity. It'sthis, no, it's this, it's this.
No, it's this. You know? 'causethat's, everything's too tight.
The complexity when there'sroom around it is that all the
10,000 things exist next to oneanother, and it's not either
or. It sounds like you'resaying when you can get that
breathing space, then you canallow things to be together

(07:24):
instead of choosing overagainst one another. And that
sounds pretty interesting tome. Mm-hmm . Mm-hmm
.

Speaker 3 (07:30):
Yeah, what you were just saying, the tunnel , the
imagery of like a woven blanketwas coming up for me. And how
kind of single blanket is madeup of those 10,000 strands and
how to be functional. There hasto be this kind of weaving
together, but just like theweaver creates it through all

(07:51):
the individual strands to maybebe whole and to be able to hold
this complexity, we also haveto tease the different strands
apart. And so there's almostthis process, it feels like, of
unraveling something andseparating it out to then be
whole. Like I'm a practitionerof Tai Chi and we talk a lot

(08:14):
about how to have integratedwhole body motion. We also do a
lot of practice of individualseparation of the body. And so
ultimately the body should allmove together as one. But to
actually achieve that unity ofbody, you need to have
particular articulation of eachfinger in each joint, the

(08:38):
elbow, the shoulder , and dopractice where you're just
looking at your shoulders tothen be able to have that
wholeness. Mm-hmm . And I think in what you're
saying, Carla, there's thiselement of having to step back
to see the whole picture, tothen be able to dive back in.

(08:59):
So there's all these differentmetaphors, but they all feel
like they're speaking to asimilar conglomeration of
ideas. And it brings upsomething else for me that I'm
thinking about, which is whenwe move slowly and we crash,
it's not so bad. It's just likea bumper car. Mm-hmm

(09:20):
. You kinda likehit and then you can readjust.
But when we're moving so fast,those crashes can be fatal. And
so that need to move slowly andto continually pause, like you
were saying, we started thepodcast with a little pause,
all the tech issues anddifferent things that we're

(09:41):
doing before we actually startthe recording. And then it's
like, okay, now let us pauseinstead of jumping right into
the next thing. And the way inwhich we're constantly being
driven to just jump from thingto thing to thing, or even
multitasking to ridiculouskinds of degrees where we can't

(10:01):
even focus on the one thing infront of us.

Speaker 4 (10:03):
Mm-hmm . Yeah. And I appreciate just
this idea what you brought upnaton of like the
claustrophobia and then thethreads. And it's like, I feel
like lately we're justcontinuing to add thread on top
of thread on top of threadwithout having any interest in
what the individual threadsare. Or taking time with each

(10:23):
one of those threads to belike, you know, what's actually
here? And for me, I'm puttingmy one hand on top of the
other. And for me that thatcreates this kind of a
flattening out for me, where wedon't have like the whole view
or we don't have the wholepicture, and then everything is
really flat. Mm . And so thenin that flat way, I think then
it really is easy to be like,well, this is all there is, or

(10:46):
this is all there is and thereis no dimension and there is
nothing else that's here. Andso where is it that with that
space, you know, I teach a lotabout space awareness. Uh, what
is it that space can actuallyprovide to be like, oh, you
know, I might be having areaction to something. And to

(11:07):
me it looks all bad, but why isthat? Like, what is my body
telling me? Like, do I havespace to let my whole body be
here in that reaction? Do Ihave space to let my memories
be here? Do I have space to letsomeone else's fullness or
their humanity to be here?
Mm-hmm . And so Ithink we just miss so much of

(11:28):
what's actually reallyhappening. We miss direct
perception and direct knowingwhen we leave out this idea of
space, the element of space inand of itself. And that's to
your point, naton , just theclaustrophobia of life. And
then how actually dangerousthat becomes when we're

(11:49):
operating from a place of zeroresource actually, because
there is no nothing to breathe. Like right. When we're
claustrophobic, it's like Iliterally can't breathe . So
then of course I'm going tomake rash decisions and
judgements because it thenbecomes like a matter of
survival.

Speaker 2 (12:07):
That's amazing. I think you named the thing about
paying attention to the space.
You know, if we talk about aconsciousness shift, and that
is what we're talking about,like the circumstances don't
necessarily change. Like ourlives are, you know, low time
contracted and there's a lot ofdemands. But we, we need to do
a shift in order to exist in away that feels healthy and

(12:29):
whole. And I wonder if it'skind of a figure ground
reversal. You know, you canfocus on the objects or you can
focus on the space mm-hmm . And if you're
in traffic and you see all theobstacles or you could see the
openings and it , it can shifthow you feel about the whole
thing. Um, a friend came backfrom Ireland once with a gift

(12:52):
for me, which was a wonderfulIrish wool scarf, you know,
that somebody had made. And youknow, it was a little bit of a
loose weave. And like the firstday I snagged it, just one of
these threads just sticking outin a big loop. And I'm like,
you know , it was such abeautiful scarf, and I was
immediately annoyed, .
And the person came up andsaid, no, no, no, you can fix

(13:14):
that. And they took hold of thescarf and they started to tug
at different areas of the scarfand just pulling on it. And
because it was loose enough totug on that thread, started to
pull back in to the hole. Mm .
Just by this little, let memake a little room here, let me
pull here. And , and it allcame back in. That was possible

(13:36):
because the weave wasn'tovertight. And this is what I'm
thinking about now is like whenthat little thread , uh, starts
to stick out, it's kind of like, um, when we have a snag in
our society and we startthrowing people out Yeah. You
know, exiling people, these ,these people no longer fit
mm-hmm . And youknow, the scarf is ruined and

(13:57):
the whole thing . Butno , there's a way we , we can
start tugging here and there torein include them because you
can't throw people away. Yeah .
You know, anything that weexile in ourselves or exile out
there becomes shadow. Mm . Sothere's something strong about
this, you know, I'm sure we'renot gonna solve it, but there's

(14:18):
this thing about a figureground reversal and making
space and focusing on the spaceand not the issues or the
objects. Mm-hmm . And it mighthelp us. Mm-hmm .

Speaker 3 (14:28):
And Carla , when you were bringing up the space
awareness, I was thinking aboutthe times I've been lucky
enough to be led in that by youand how powerful it was as a
practice. And one thing Ireally appreciated about it was
the play with perspective. Thatin this kind of practice, you
were leading us to really largeperspectives and doing things

(14:51):
like looking from above andviewing our entire body and
then zooming in into reallysmall areas and this play of
big perspective and narrowperspective. And at the top we
were talking about the kind ofdanger of narrow perspective,
but now I'm thinking how bothare really integral. How

(15:12):
sometimes we need to zoomreally tightly in and focus on
a single cell, but then we needto zoom out and view the Milky
Way mm-hmm .
Mm-hmm . And howat different perspectives,
different things become clearand different things become
occluded. Like when we'rezoomed in, we can't see the

(15:33):
large perspective, but from thelarge perspective, we can't see
the nitty gritty details. Andhow, to your point, it's not
one or the other. We need both.
And how that play ofperspective is so important.
And so maybe in response to theoriginal kind of question, one

(15:54):
answer I guess, is thatkind of playing with our own
perspective in minds ofstepping in and stepping out
and stepping to the left andstepping to the right and
really trying to maintain thiskind of 360 degree view, but
not all at once, but justplaying with it, moving and

(16:17):
seeing it from all thesedifferent perspectives. And
with that said, I'm wonderingif you can maybe share a little
bit more about the spaceawareness practice and how that
might fit into what you'retalking about.

Speaker 4 (16:30):
Mm , yeah. Well, I think , um, just this
recognition that, you know,space is actually an element
just like fire, water, earth.
An air space is also an elementthat we use and that we
collaborate with all the time.
And that's not necessarilyobvious to it us because it's

(16:50):
literally, you know, like thewater, you know, that we're
swimming in, so to speak mm-hmm . And so there's
this way in which we often justconceptualize space. I think we
have a lot of language aroundspace, right? Like, you know, I
feel like I can't take upspace, or I want space, or I
need it, or give me my space,or all of these things. Hmm .
But that's just really aconceptualization of space of

(17:11):
what is it like to actuallyknow that we are space and it's
an element that we utilize justlike all of the other elements.
And what is it like when weturn toward that as a resource
and something that is availableand helpful to us, and also
quite vast. And also to natunnel's point, I think that in

(17:33):
that conceptualization of space, uh, we often use it as a
commodity, right? Like, wedecide who gets it, who doesn't
get it. I can kick you out ofit. I can punish you with it.
. I can put you in asmall box called a prison and
keep you from space, or I canaward you. And when you're
privileged and you can have ahuge mansion, you can have all

(17:53):
the space. You can have anisland . You know? So
there's this way in which whenwe disrespect space, I would
say in that kind of way thatwe're, we're harming one
another and there's this waythat we could really utilize it
to our benefit. That it'sactually not something that we
can piece up and cut up andgive to people and kick people

(18:14):
out of, but it's something foreveryone. And what is it to
actually claim the territory ofour space and really honor it
by collaborating with it? Andthat does though require us
having rest, mm-hmm . The time to
actually investigate what isour relationship with space,

(18:35):
and also what are the ways inwhich we're afraid of space.
Right? You know, like when welook at it from that big
absolute like cosmic, it'sterrifying space and it can
make us feel really small andreally, really ins sequential.
And so that's to a lot of whatI think around that narrowing
is that solidification, wewanna do those things because

(18:57):
we're, we're really afraid ofbeing smaller. We're really
afraid of being spacious andour full self. And what are the
implications if there really isenough room and space for
everybody, right? Like, whatdoes that actually mean? Mm-hmm
. And so yeah, Ido a lot of practices where
we're really engaging withspace, not so much on that
conceptual framework, butreally as an element. And we

(19:20):
utilize the wisdom of the bodyin order to, to also connect
with that and to really slowdown and really say what is the
object? And also what is thespace, as Anton was saying. So
yeah, that's just a littlesnippet. Mm-hmm .

Speaker 2 (19:36):
Thank you. Thank you. Mm-hmm .
Well, you want to go Daniel, oryou want me to go? I'm happy
for you to go shoot . Uh , well , uh, I'm
caught a little off guard and Ishouldn't be because I knew we
were doing this , um, and I actually sat down ahead
of time with a little piece ofnote paper and didn't write a

(19:56):
darn thing on it. . So,space, space is it actually,
you know , um, , uh, Itaught a retreat all weekend,
and so very little space in myweekend. I didn't get much of a
weekend. And, and so when I gotback, you know, all I wanted to
do was have a root beer andhave pizza and watch a movie

(20:20):
. And I re-watched TheMartian with Matt Damon
speaking of space. And man, Ijust, I loved this movie. You
know, it's a good well-mademovie. You know, it's got some
clever lines that , you know ,I don't think that's it. It was
something about hope He'sstranded on Mars, his team has

(20:41):
left because they think he'sdead. He's got some stuff that
he can work with to survive,but it's, you know, it's the
most difficult survival, youknow , situation. We can
imagine. Pretty much. Hefigures out how to grow
potatoes and , you know, the whole thing. He's a
botanist and it's really great,but at a certain point people

(21:02):
realize that he's not dead. Andit's a question about do we go
back and get him and do weleave a person on a planet?
Because it's hard because itwill cost a million dollars. A
million dollars is probably low way low a billion. It
will cost a billion dollars.

(21:23):
and his crew mates arealready, you know, 500 days out
heading home and turning aspaceship around is a bigger
deal than turning a , you know,a ship around in the ocean, you
know? Hmm . Much bigger. Andthey're deciding not to tell
'em and blah, blah, blah. Butonce that crew finds out,

(21:43):
they're turning the shiparound, even against orders,
and they're going back to gethim, and people are doing the
math, the crazy math that itwould take to try to get him
off the planet, not run outtaresources, get him home, and
every window there is sonarrow, everything is a long
shot. Everybody's survival isat risk to try to do this. And

(22:07):
I felt like I've always beenfighting this notion of this
survival of the fittest. Youknow, when I used to read about
evolution, you know, many, manyyears ago, it was always this
survival of the fittest thing ,you know? And if the weak ,
they don't get to survive, youknow? And we leave them behind.
And the more I learned aboutevolution, the more I learned

(22:29):
that that was false. That thereis not really evidence for
that. The evidence is to thecontrary, that even in the most
dire circumstances in ourdeepest past, and we see this
from the archeologicalevidence, you know, the bone
evidence, especially aparticular person who was must

(22:49):
have been mauled by a lion. Themarks are, you know, in the
bone damages in their leg. Butwhat we learned from that body
was that person was mauled andprobably would not be able to
walk or take care of themselvesfor about two years. And yet
they healed, which meant thetribe and tribes then were 12

(23:10):
to tops 40 people, but usuallykind of 12 to 20 people, those
people picked him up andcarried him, and probably for
the next couple years until hecould heal. That's the
evidence. And so survival of a, the fittest was a , a thing
that Herbert Spencer added toDarwin's ideas, but were not in

(23:30):
Darwin's natural selectionideas. And the adding of that
notion, survival of thefittest, abandoned the weak ,
led to eugenics. You know, andit's not in evidence, it's not
what humans do. And as I'mwatching this film, they're
making this ridiculous effortto turn around to save this one

(23:50):
man when it's not reasonable.
If it is not rational, butthey're gonna do it. And you
can say, well, that's just amovie, but we dreamed that
movie. That's what made a goodmovie. That's who we want to
be. So it's reflected there onanother scale. You know, we
will and do go into space now,and I hope that we always make

(24:14):
that human choice. And it gaveme a lot of hope. And the , um,
anthropologist Margaret Mead,when she was asked the
question, you know, when doescivilization start? Does it
start with bone tools orwhatever? She used the example
of the taking care of thatperson who had been mauled by
the lion. Hmm . She said,that's when civilization

(24:35):
starts. And so I look at themovie, and it was amazing from
the perspective of problemsolving. Like he solved amazing
problems in fantastic ways andin ways that are, you know,
more or less accurate. Theywere possible. But they took
gathering all, all ourpotential, all our science. And

(24:56):
I looked at that and I thought,we have all the capacity we
need to survive our currentimmaturity, except the maturity
to survive our immaturity. It'snot a technological problem. We
can save ourselvestechnologically and from
intellectual capacity. It's acharacter issue and the

(25:16):
character that we need tosurvive that is in that act,
which we've done in the deepestpast, and which we're doing as
we imagine this future where weask the question, who do I want
to be? I want to be the personthat risked to save someone. So
that's my reflection on that.
And that's a big deal to me.

(25:38):
That's , I think about this allthe time, . So there's
my thing, space ,

Speaker 3 (25:45):
It's making me think of this little teaching from
the Talmud where they say, tosave a single life is to save
the entire universe.

Speaker 2 (25:55):
Yeah .

Speaker 3 (25:55):
That's all I got.
That , that's what it'smaking me think of.

Speaker 2 (25:59):
.

Speaker 3 (26:00):
,

Speaker 4 (26:01):
Yeah. What's coming up for me is the willingness to
just kind of abandon the logic.
I feel like that also issometimes that's where I feel
like my most human and my mostkind of available for my
humanity is when I'm actuallywilling to be like, this
doesn't make any sense, butit's just a knowing and a

(26:21):
feeling inside of me, and kindof an allegiance to take care,
to take care of something, totake care of someone no matter
what. And to be that, you know,that courageous, but in that
moment, and you don't even needcourage. You're just already
doing it. And like, nothing'sgonna stop you, actually. And
that to me is like the morevisceral feeling of like what

(26:42):
it it means to be alive and tobe a human and to, to be doing
this, you know?

Speaker 2 (26:50):
Yeah. And , and then there's an interesting thing
that comes up in the movie,because people are saying
you're abandoning logic. Hmm .
You're abandoning reason. Butit's through logic and reason
that all the survivalsituations that they activate
are accomplished. And it , itreminds me of this thing, you
know, that I like to say allthe time , is that we are not

(27:12):
rational beings. We arenon-rational beings with a
rational faculty. And so it'slike, what are we gonna put our
reasons toward? What are wegonna give that faculty for? So
the people, they make a heartdecision, right? You know, the
tal quote is, in time you'llsave the world. Mm-hmm . You
save the one person that's intime, you'll save the world. So

(27:32):
they choose to save the worldby saving that one person, but
then they utilize all kinds ofreason to accomplish the act.
You know? Mm-hmm . There's something about that,
about being human. We have tofigure out how we want to be
human, which kinds of humans.

Speaker 3 (27:49):
Hmm . Yeah. And what you're both saying, I'm
thinking about what we think ofas beautiful and what really
moves us. To your point, Carlo, what is that visceral feeling
of desire, beauty, and how wehave this deep attraction to
this kind of irrational, overthe top striving to do

(28:14):
something amazing for justiceor for people We love something
that, for most intents andpurposes doesn't make sense to
do, but will walk across vastdistances to go meet somebody
or to deliver a letter back inthe day out of something that

(28:35):
is beyond logic, out of thisdeep heart yearning. And it
seems like there's may be anintuitive knowing of the
preciousness of a single lifeor a single person, and how
that's what we think of asbeautiful. We have this
obsession that has grown indifferent times of like

(28:57):
romantic love notions. And allof our music is so deeply about
love and movies and all thethings. We have this kind of
obsession with these romanticnotions of love. And not just
romantic love, but love for ourfamily or friends, these kind

(29:19):
of extraordinary feats that aredriven by love.

Speaker 2 (29:24):
Yeah. The, the other story wasn't worth telling. Oh,
he was still alive. They lefthim there . It was not
reasonable to go back. There'sno movie. We don't want to tell
that story. No. . It'snot worth telling.

Speaker 3 (29:40):
Yeah. And there's something inhuman. Yeah . This
cold calculated thing. There'ssomething that feels inhuman
about that. Mm-hmm .

Speaker 2 (29:49):
Yeah. It's not a story worth telling. That's a
kind of logical decision thatwould lead to an existence that
we're not actually thatinterested in having. Mm-hmm .
It's a wonder that anybodymakes an argument about it.
Yes. It , you know, it evolves,you know, risk to your own
lives. But this is what I findprofound about the movie stuff,
is like, it tells us somethingabout us. There is no movie

(30:13):
about the other, youknow , . It's not a
story we want to have. That'sthe story of despondency.

Speaker 4 (30:21):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (30:22):
Carla, do you have any, anything else you wanted
to share on this?

Speaker 4 (30:25):
Well, I think in the way to the story that's not
being told, it's just, it's notthe story of who we really are.
You know? And I think of thatstory, I'm like, that's a
nightmare. And I think we knowthat that's the end of us. Mm .
Right. That story is is the endbecause it means that there is
no love that we have gone toofar over into the logical side

(30:47):
of things. The misuse of logic,I would say. Mm . And so, yeah,
I think we don't tell thosestories because it isn't
reflective of anything that weare. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (30:58):
Top that. Daniel , the Martian.

Speaker 4 (31:01):
What you got? Daniel .

Speaker 3 (31:04):
Will you all just gimme one second. I need some
water. Yeah. That I failed tobring with me.

Speaker 2 (31:09):
Sure, sure. , you know who needed some
water? Matt Damon needed somewater on that planet .

Speaker 4 (31:15):
I bet. Oh my gosh, you're making me wanna see that
now because I haven't seen it

Speaker 2 (31:20):
So good.

Speaker 4 (31:21):
But you're quite the advertisement for it. .

Speaker 2 (31:25):
That's all I had.
. Yeah ,

Speaker 4 (31:27):
It's amazing.

Speaker 3 (31:30):
If

Speaker 5 (31:30):
You're enjoying the episode, please consider
subscribing to our Patreon tohelp support the production of
the podcast

Speaker 1 (31:37):
Subscriptions begin at $1, all patrons receive
access to bonus content,curated resources, and
exclusive patron events,including live q and as

Speaker 5 (31:47):
For more information, please check out
the Patreon link in the shownotes. And thanks for
listening.

Speaker 3 (31:53):
So it's funny that you bring this up tonal in the
previous conversation aboutspace because my topic has
something to do with space aswell. I have a whole little
mini conglomeration ofthoughts, so I don't know how
articulate it will be, but Iwill throw them all out in a

(32:13):
jumble and task you both withteasing them out, hopefully
. I'm thinking aboutthe planet Earth itself as a
kind of core connecting pointand maybe metaphor for inter
spirituality and beyond interspirituality, really humanity

(32:34):
and global cooperation andhopefully harmony. And our
teacher, Reb Zalman spoke a lotabout the impact on
consciousness of the firstviewing of Earth from space,
which was long before I wasborn. So it's something I
inherited images that I grew upseeing, being familiar with

(32:58):
that and taking that forgranted, but found it really
powerful. First encounteringSalman's thoughts on this of
how monumental it was to seeunequivocally earth from space
as a single unit. And it's soplainly obvious viewing it from
space. And this has brought upa very interesting, weird

(33:22):
experience. I had one time ofinteracting with a channel
named Bashar, who I sawtalking, and the audience was
asked if we had any questions.
And without having anyquestion, I just raised my hand
because I wanted to ask aquestion. And I was chosen to
ask this question. And thefirst stop, best stop , as we

(33:43):
say, came up and I asked him,is Jesus your homeboy? I don't
know why I asked this ,but that was my question for
this channel, because you were19 ? Uh , yeah, probably
about that age . Andhonestly, I don't remember much
of the response. Partly becausethe experience of interacting
with this channel was lessverbal and more like certain

(34:07):
frequency got turned up in mymind and felt like something
was being communicated. But Ididn't really hear the words
that came out. But what I doremember him saying is that,
yes, I'm very familiar with theChrist consciousness, Buddha
nature, CNA spirit. It's how Icommunicate with your planet .

(34:31):
And he asked if I understoodafter saying many more things.
And I felt like I didunderstand, and I reflected
back, is what you're saying,that this Christ consciousness,
Buddha nature, Krishna spirit,is the unique frequency of the
planet Earth. And he said yes.
And ever since that time, it'sbeen spinning around my head a

(34:54):
little bit, this idea of whatis the particular frequency,
the particular soul of theplanet Earth. And furthermore,
in terms of inter spirituality,is it one way to understand
illuminated teachers orprophets or masters , et

(35:15):
cetera, that they are somehowattuning to the particular
frequency of the planet Earthand becoming more pure
reflections of that energy.
This kind of language oftengets talked about in terms of
God becoming transparent to, ora channel for the light of God,

(35:35):
if you will . But what if wekind of flip that metaphor and
think of it more on theearth-based and more in line
with earth-based spiritualitiesthat are really more about
attuning to mother earth,thinking about it, it makes
sense in terms of thesemetaphors of a snowflake or

(35:55):
individual souls, that there'sthis sense that we're all made
up of the same substance, andyet that substance configures
itself in unique ways. And thatof all the billions and
trillions and infinite numberof stars and planets and
galaxies in the universe,thinking about what is unique

(36:16):
about the planet and how thatis all of our birthright. We
are earth beings as the treefruits, the earth peoples, as
Alan Watt says. So that is mymess of thoughts thinking about
the earth and the uniqueness ofearth and earth as an

(36:37):
interspiritual connectingpoint. And again, beyond inter
spirituality or anything likethat, really just for humanity.
So work with that. Y'all .
,

Speaker 2 (36:50):
Go

Speaker 3 (36:50):
Ahead, Natana .

Speaker 2 (36:52):
Okay . Well , I mean that was bringing up a myriad
of thoughts for me too, youknow, but I think there was a ,
an overriding theme. I thinkyour response that perhaps that
Christ consciousness orwhatever, however it might be
called, is the unique frequencyof the planet. That's a very

(37:12):
interesting idea. 'cause in away it's saying , um, the
universal connection, wisdom,consciousness is what holds the
planet together as long as itholds together. And if it's to
hold together, and this wisdomconsciousness has a character.
And I guess I first started tothink about the philosopher

(37:32):
and, and mystic , uh, te demm-hmm . And ,
and his idea that over time theplanet would achieve
consciousness and kind ofuniversal connectivity, you
know, and in , in some ways itseems like he was predicting,
you know, the internet,, , you know,
and that's one of the ways inwhich Alman who you mentioned,

(37:53):
like to frame that. But I thinkthere's something more there.
Um, I've got two ideas I wantto connect. Um, one, there's an
idea in Kabbalah of the Neitemm-hmm . The
general or universal soul. Andit's sometimes thought that,
you know, these great spiritualteachers are universal souls.

(38:14):
Mm-hmm . And what's meant inKabbalah is that they have a
capacity to connect to manytypes of people, or many types
of people can connect throughthem. So they're like a plugin
to which you can plug manydifferent kind of prongs.
They're that power source. Andthat's kind of what makes them
universal teachers, becausethere are teachers out there
that like can only connect withone type of, of student, but

(38:35):
then some people connect withmany types of people. And so,
you know, maybe what is activein that universal soul that
Nima kli is this connectednessto this more universal
frequency of the planet. Youknow? And so it can connect
with all these different types.
And it's, it's something thatwe say about prophets, that

(38:59):
prophet is not a predictor.
Prophecy is not aboutprediction. It's about , um, at
least in Hebrew, the, the wordAvi means to call or proclaim.
And in its root looks like itis related to , uh, the idea of
being a channel. If you becomehollow like a reed , you know,

(39:22):
and you cut certain holes inthere, you become the flute
through which God plays as itwere. It's an idea that's SM
two . And when we connect thisto prophecy that , uh, the
prophet is a voice forhumanity, a voice for the
planet. And that's why inJudaism at least, and more and
more it's accepted that theprophetic voice is the voice

(39:44):
that speaks for justice, forwholeness. Mm-hmm
. But there's a particularcharacter to that voice that it
is listening to the voice ofthe planet and humanity. And so
it speaks for and through thewhole, and in terms of

(40:04):
activism, it's not prophetic tojust go pound out your opinion
about how things should be.
It's prophetic when you'respeaking for the planet for its
needs and listening to thoseneeds and all the diversity of
voices. And they're gettingchanneled into this kind of one

(40:25):
voice that really can speak forthe whole and wholeness. And so
that's coming all together forme. There is probably a unified
message and a unifying messagethat comes through the
diversity, but you have tolisten to all the diversity to
get it. Mm-hmm .
And , and maybe that's thevoice of our entire planet. You
know ,

Speaker 3 (40:44):
You have to enter the Lorax consciousness.

Speaker 2 (40:47):
Yes. .
Exactly.

Speaker 4 (40:51):
Wait, y'all need to talk to me about this Lorax
consciousness. , whatare you referring to

Speaker 2 (40:56):
Daniel?

Speaker 3 (40:58):
Well, just the Dr.
Seuss story of the Lorax. Oh, Iam the Lorax. I speak for the
trees

Speaker 2 (41:05):
. Mm-hmm .

Speaker 3 (41:07):
Just that idea.

Speaker 4 (41:08):
I see. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (41:09):
We bought a really cool t-shirt in Denver and it
had this kind of creature on itthat was made up of all these
things that are in Denver, allthese cool shops. And it says,
I am the Colfax. I speak forthe streets. Ah ,

Speaker 4 (41:23):
Yes .

Speaker 2 (41:24):
And Colfax is this Long street in Denver that has
all these diverse kinds ofshops on it, and tattoo shops
and cupcake shops really . It was great.

Speaker 4 (41:35):
It's a good shout out for Denver. That's amazing.

Speaker 2 (41:39):
But that is an idea that's out there that
aggregates have consciousnessas such mm-hmm .
Trees, you know, cities,there's aggregate consciousness
there. And like cities havecharacter, you know? Mm-hmm
. New York City,San Francisco. They're very
different cities and theircharacter and their
consciousness. Mm-hmm . I think there's
something there.

Speaker 4 (41:59):
Yeah. I think there's something there.
Definitely. It makes me thinkof the astrocartography where
based on like when you wereborn, there's different places
on the earth that will havedifferent lessons in life for
you depending on, you know, theland that you're on. And I
definitely, you know, feelthose different vibes when I do

(42:20):
travel to different places andthese different peaks in the
different mountains. And the,there are different sorts of
expressions. And I do feelthere's more, you know, divine
masculine energies that comefrom certain mountain ranges,
and there's more divinefeminine energies that come
from certain places. And youknow, I know that there's a lot
of people who are very muchattuned to that. And different

(42:43):
spiritual centers are usuallyorganized around these
different qualities of theearth and the land and the
different flavors that sheemanates. Something that came
up for me is, you know, Ialways think of Gaia like the
mother, like the mama goddess.
And yet like the people wholike represent her voice, you
know, it's like Christconsciousness or Buddha. I'm

(43:04):
like, where are like the womenwho are like embodying the
mother and motherconsciousness? I think that
that came up for me. I justthink it's like very, very
fascinating that it feels likethere's this little bit of a
patriarch takeover of like, whorepresents the voice of the
earth, you know? I mean , um,So I just wanted to like throw

(43:24):
that in the mix. Uh, and I'mtotally down with Buddha and
Christ and all the things, butas you find it fascinating of
who speaks for theconsciousness of the earth.
Mm-hmm . Yeah .

Speaker 2 (43:37):
. Yeah.
Let's throw some others outthere. It could have been like,
you know, Mary consciousness,you know? Yeah.

Speaker 3 (43:44):
Well maybe I would've got that if I asked,
is Mary your homegirl?

Speaker 4 (43:47):
Is Mary your homegirl? Yeah. .

Speaker 2 (43:51):
Because

Speaker 3 (43:51):
Part of my question is at that time there was these
shirts that were very popularand one was Jesus is my homeboy
and had a , you know, littleJesus figure and another one
that said, Mary is my home girland had a little virgin Mary.
So maybe if I posed my questionin a less patriarchal way, I
would've gotten a lesspatriarchal answer.

Speaker 4 (44:14):
Yeah. I think this goes back to though of like,
know it's the union and wheredo we as humans still wanna say
like, it's masculine orfeminine or, you know, the
earth represents this, but it'slike it's whole, it's like all
of it, you know, it isn'tactually like one or the other.
It's a type of wholeconsciousness that doesn't have
to be like, parsed out. And ithas, it has all of those

(44:36):
aspects, you know? Mm-hmm . Mm-hmm
. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (44:39):
I liked what you were saying, Carla, bringing in
this idea that different placeson the earth have this
particular energy. 'cause Ithink mm-hmm .
Talking about perspective,that's what I'm thinking about
in terms of the earth. In thesame way that different places
on earth have differentenergies. Earth itself has a

(45:00):
different energy than Mars,than Venus. Yes . The Milky Way
maybe has a different energythan other galaxies. Mm-hmm
. And it's hardfor us to really conceive of
that, I think. And part of whatI'm thinking about is that some
of what we project onto theuniverse is maybe more about

(45:22):
earth as a particularity,because we only know the
universe through the medium ofearth. One way I'm thinking
about it is that light isuniversal and yet love might
not be. And how this kind ofparticular role of the earth or

(45:43):
humanity as a kind of Lorax ofthe earth, our kind of
role is this transmutation of akind of universal light into a
universal love. And as I'msaying that, I don't, I don't
know if I even agree withmyself 'cause love does feel

(46:03):
that it pervades the entireuniverse, but it feels like
maybe, I don't know somethingparticular about Earth and how
do we really know the universeother than through earth as
earth beings.

Speaker 2 (46:17):
I can't remember which book it's in, but CS
Lewis's space trilogy than oneof them. There's a description
of the planets with these veryspecific characters,
it's whole thing about that.
Yeah . And what is thecharacter of this planet? It's
an interesting thought.

Speaker 4 (46:34):
And we're all rotating, you know, around the
sun. I mean, that's like thegovernor of things, you know?
So even that itself to likecentralize, we centralize like,
oh, earth, earth in retrospectto all these other planets. But
really it's, everything isactually like in retrospect to
the sun, to this light source.
And I think like that we forgetthat as well and still

(46:55):
centralize even earth, youknow, like you were saying,
Daniel, but really the sun isthe center mm-hmm
.

Speaker 3 (47:02):
Yeah . For for our solar system.

Speaker 4 (47:04):
Yeah. For our solar system.

Speaker 2 (47:06):
Yeah . And I was thinking about like these kind
of , um, archetypal forms thatembody our aggregate
consciousness. And we werenaming the , you know , these
ones, you know, these maleones. But I think a lot about,
in particular about the Virginof Guadalupe and how unique a

(47:26):
phenomenon it is, the kind ofadoration that belongs to her.
Hmm . Uh , you know, there's awhole story behind the Virgin
of Guadalupe, but Guadalupe isa place in Spain and what's
kind of being remembered orreferenced, there is a
particular icon of the VirginMary that existed in this place

(47:48):
in Spain. And it was really adoo like a porcelain doo , the
virgin of Guadalupe .
But in Mexico, it becomes atotally different thing where
the Virgin of Guadalupe appearsto Juan Diego, this peasant,
you know, of indigenousheritage in a period where the
country is being colonized andwhat is she when she appears to

(48:11):
him, but a fusion, a mestiza ,you know, a mixed race person
that is representing bothnansen , the , uh, indigenous
goddess of that particularplace. But now she's dressed in
new clothes, these Spanishclothes, and she looks a little
bit indigenous and a little bitEuropean. Mm-hmm

(48:32):
. And so it's like, this is noteven a person like Guadalupe
was a doll in a way, representing Mary. And now
there's this kind of visionaryexperience of what seems like a
person who represents thecoming together of indigenous
peoples and European peoples.

(48:52):
And she's a unifying figure.
And now she's jumped out ofCatholicism. Like you'll find
her all over the place. Notjust Christians have icons of
the Virgin of Guadalupe. And soI think these unifying
archetypal figures thatrepresent human consciousness
and how we can come togetheremerge mm-hmm .
And aggregate by themselves.

(49:13):
And then they , they growbeyond their limited places of
origin.

Speaker 4 (49:18):
I just love you bringing this in, these
symbols. I think coming backto, you know, what I started
with around like, how do wehold this complexity? And yet
we have these figures that cannever be solidified into one
thing, you know? And then justcontinue actually to become
more vast and more expansive asthey go to include this kind of

(49:42):
like beyond, you know, as soonas you think it's a thing, then
it's gonna go beyond. Now we'regonna take it outta Catholicism
and now we're gonna take itoutta this geography, and now
we're gonna take it out of thisrace or this religion or this.
And yet there's still a , aparticular sort of quality that
we can feel that's a universalemanation from a figure like
Guadalupe mm-hmm . So I think more of that, you

(50:04):
know mm-hmm .
Like going toward that sort ofsymbology.

Speaker 3 (50:07):
Yeah. And if there's to be some kind of icon of the
planet, like an embodiment ofthe earth, it seems only right
that it would be aconglomeration, an
amalgamation. Similarly to theway a dragon is traditionally
comprised of all of thesedifferent kinds of beings, the

(50:29):
talons of a eagle andsnake-like, but with feathers
and et cetera, that it would besome kind of amalgamated and
yet unified being that wouldhave all of these
representations of differentcultures and places and naton ,

(50:50):
I might charge you as anamazing visual artist to Ooh ,
dream of this kind ofarchetypal figure. So homework.
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (51:02):
I think I do dream that because we need these
figures to represent us, andwhen they don't represent us,
there's a kind of disconnect.
Mm-hmm . Yeah . You know, likewhite Jesus emerged for a white
population, you know, 'causeJesus certainly wasn't white
. Um, and then thiswhite Jesus emerges, and now we

(51:24):
can look back at that and go,that's problematic to impose
that. But where we're going onthe planet, if we do survive is
kind of back to where we camefrom. Because in Africa, the
suggestion is that we wereprobably a mid brown people and
now all that variation happenedfrom, you know, geographic
separation. But as we mergeagain, we're gonna be a mid

(51:48):
brown people. And, and maybeall our archetypal figures will
need to be mid brown again.
,

Speaker 4 (51:54):
I'm down with that.
Yeah. .

Speaker 2 (51:57):
And, you know, some of the more extreme
representations will , willlose some relevance, even if
they were accurate. But, youknow, white Jesus was never
accurate.

Speaker 4 (52:08):
.

Speaker 2 (52:09):
But even if they were accurate, they could lose
relevance to amid brown peopleor they'll have a different
significance. You know, in theseventies it became important
to have a black Jesus. Just'cause we, we have to see
ourselves represented in orderto connect and connect through.
So it's gonna be interestingwhere, where our archetypes go

(52:29):
naturally, organically. Mm-hmm

Speaker 4 (52:31):
.

Speaker 2 (52:32):
Uh , I'll take the charge, I will make those
icons. . Yes.

Speaker 3 (52:37):
Well, an exploration of space and complexity all the
way around, it seems .
So go team in terms of verylittle planning and good
cohesion.

Speaker 2 (52:50):
Yeah. Actually totally unplanned and in the
middle seeing the theme, like Iwrote down Space Travel with
Carla Burns. .

Speaker 4 (52:58):
. Do it .

Speaker 2 (53:03):
That's the episode.

Speaker 4 (53:05):
. Great .
Love it.

Speaker 3 (53:08):
So again, thank you so much Carla for joining us
for this wide ranging chat backand forth. And to close us out,
I'm wondering if you have alittle something to share, be
it a poem or a song or a quote.

Speaker 4 (53:24):
Yeah , I , I have this lovely calendar that I
love that's called We Moon . Somore on that space theme,
. So Daniel,when you set a poem, I thought,
well, I'll just get somethingfrom my we moon calendar
because it's filled with poetryand things about the cosmos and
the mother earth actually.
Beautiful. And so this is apoem by Julia Flynn from the We

(53:48):
Moon. And it's called TheJourney. You Were Not Born to
be a Machine child. Can't youfeel the life inside of you,
the wildness that is yourinheritance buried like the
bones of your ancestors and allthey created awaiting your
excavation? Can you hear theirvoices beckoning? They're with

(54:10):
you deep within the hollowedcave inside your chest. That is
where the path will lead you.
And sometimes you'll fear thejourney. Of course you will
doubt. And then you mightremember these words. And the
way the sun warms your skin asit rises, the winds embrace the

(54:30):
rocks beneath your feet and theice cold water of the stream At
night, you might build a fireand follow its embers as they
ascend toward the fires burningin the heavens. And you will
know this is where you arealways meant to be.

Speaker 3 (54:49):
Hmm . Beautiful.
Thank you. Thank you.

Speaker 4 (54:52):
Mm-hmm . Thank you. Lovely hanging out
with you two psycho knots. Until we meet again on

Speaker 5 (54:59):
This planet

Speaker 4 (55:01):
Or the next ,

Speaker 5 (55:05):
Shout out to friend of the show tree Fort of Golden
Turtle sound for producing theintro and outro music and
assisting with mixing andmastering. Be sure to check out
as awesome music and hit upgolden turtle sound for any of
your audio engineering needs.