Jed McKenna is a perfect example of psychopathic spiritual teacher:
"My worldview is not informed by any teacher or teaching. I assert no belief, original or second-hand. I am not passing anything down that was passed down to me. Every square inch of my understanding comes from exploration, perception, reason, and logic. You might say there are higher ways of knowing than reason and logic, and being heart-centric, you might believe it, but it’s not true. It’s the heart that will mislead you, every time. Reason and logic drive me straight into the absolute certainty and inevitability of nonduality, and all else follows naturally from that. That's the way the world unfolds."
"Frankly, it doesn’t matter what side of the aisle you are on in the religious space. Fully for, fully against, it’s still a belief. You will never know until you die, and you may not even know then."
This is exactly why I regard atheism (and Scientism, its most modern iteration) as a modern religion. They believe not having faith, but their faith involves believing in nothing insubstantial.
I'm a Omnist, myself. A meta believer, an apostle of Life.
I feel as though beliefs are of the essence, when it comes to shaping the believer, which is why institucionalized religions are invariably a two edged sword... that purports to liberate but ultimately ensnares adepts in paradoxes seemingly designed to arrest critical thought from the onset - as the ones from your Sunday school memories.
The true religious spirit ( as hinted in the etimology of the word) is all about reconnecting us incarnate souls to the unnamable Source, and overcoming all illusory attachments to this transient reality. This is observable in the philosophy of Buddhism indeed, although it's worth noting that it too has its own politized branches - much like other religions also usually have their philosophical merits.
I concur with your hypothesis that Buddhism may have been established by a well meaning person having the psychopathic mindset. At very least there are striking similarities in attitude between that and the enlighnened mind, as attested by Kevin Dutton. Well... at least, where it concerns the psychopathic mind that is not weighed down by hubris - for that which happended to be could very well decide to go the opposite direction, to become a cult leader.
Jun 14, 2022·edited Jun 14, 2022Liked by Athena Walker
I have no more particular attachment to the Adam and Eve story than I do to, say, a Greek myth. But do you mind if I take a crack at the interpretation? If such things are annoying just tell me and I'll stick to other topics in the future.
A lot of religious texts are esoteric and have a meaning behind the direct physical meaning.
Adam means "man" in Hebrew, from adamah (dirt.) So ... the physical stuff of humanity. Eve means 'eternal spirit.' So in the native Hebrew the story has a much more allegorical tone with two characters named "man" and "eternal spirit."
Child Athena asked: "How on earth are these two people supposed to understand the gravity of that tree or the choice that they are making?"
Eve wouldn't have understood before she ate the apple. But after she ate the apple she should have had knowledge. Despite this, she shared the apple with Adam. That was the only informed choice that was really made in the story, where a character both had knowledge of Good and Evil and also acted badly despite that knowledge. If Adam and Eve are individuals, it doesn't make sense if they're both punished. If Adam and Eve are humanity and its Eternal Spirit the allegory makes a bit more sense.
Of course, you were very right to point out the problems with your teachers telling you that God doesn't tempt people in the JudeoChristian tradition.
In any case, I think we both understand that Genesis is a story made up by a fallible human a very long time ago and the indoctrination of young children kindof sucks. In Sunday School I was told that the 'Red Sea' was actually the Reed Sea and that the Hebrews crossing it were able to do so because they were lighter than the chariots behind them. The miraculous re-telling came later, I was told. So there was a different tone to the education, with less focus on lockstep belief and literal interpretation. And I've probably had less of an aversion to religion because of it, though I'm by no means devout or orthodox.
In any case, I do like your interpretation of some strains of Buddhism. (I have heard you make the comparison before.)
The Koan makes far more overt sense than most Zen Koans.
Jun 14, 2022·edited Jun 14, 2022Liked by Athena Walker
I liked this post very much, thanks Athena.
I think my angular gyrus is not wired the NT way... it is connected to my perceptions of CHOCOLATE. Just saying. Dark chocolate, in particular.
I only know a few other autistics, but they don't seem to have the NT religious thing going on either... As a kid, I thought that belief would be nice to have, after viewing how certain it seemed to make some adults, but I could never actually feel it -- and I don't want to anymore after seeing more human behavior. I'd agree that the Buddha was likely not NT, but I'm not sure which neurotype he was... I know very little about Buddhism though, just going by the logic part you describe; some of us autistics have cognition a lot more separate from emotions than many NTs seem to. A difference between autistics and psychopaths might be that the latter would mostly have muted emotions - per your description - but some of us autistics have very strong emotions... for me, more in a bubble at times; I'm not "in" them always, but if they get very strong, they expand and include "me" in them. I bet that makes no sense... But my understanding of Buddhism would let me conclude that some autistics could find it very attractive/helpful.
I can feel a strong sense of wonder, beauty, and love, and I can feel a part of life and existence, sometimes, in a pretty wonderful way... but not the same way as people describe their connection to a personified deity... and I don't conflate my inner experiences with reality as much as some NTs. I think. Would I know? Hmmm, not sure.
I too was raised in a very religious environment and also had lots of questions but I incorrectly deduced that there was something that they weren't telling me and I wanted to know what that could be so I was extremely patient with their bullshit
Until I wasn't
I laugh when I think about how long I abided with that foolishness now but it is what it is.
Lovely article Athena. I've had a similar hypothesis about the Buddha. I'd definitely be more interested in your thoughts on the similarities between psychopathy and Buddhism.
Jun 16, 2022·edited Jun 16, 2022Liked by Athena Walker
I have a different perspective on the Buddhist concept of enlightenment. Actually, the concept isn't unique to Buddhism - the public just associates thethe concept with Buddhism. The Bhagavad Gita leads up to Arjuna's enlightenment, and even the Bible speaks of it when you interpret it in a mystical way (the Bible has an infinite variety of interpretations).
Although there are the similarities that you note, there are also quite a few differences between psychopathy and enlightenment.
With enlightenment, there's no sense of individual self. It's real difficult to describe the experience, but it's a broadening of that sense of self to include everything that exists. I feel like my edges - whatever that means - are diffuse, but people tell me I'm more defined.
Because there's no sense of self, desires disappears. Desire served as motivation for action, but now, it's all immersed in flow.
The mind becomes very still. Thoughts arise, but theres no attachment, no identification with them. After a lifetime of defensive emotions and busy thoughts, I find the experience fascinating.
There's no compartmentalization. It's all one level, one awareness. The focus is on what's happening now, a moment-to-moment awareness. I don’t get bored. The last time I was bored when I was waiting for surgery a year ago - boredom came from nerves at that time.
My feeling is that this is our natural state. When we "make the unconscious conscious," as Jung suggested, refrain from judgment, forgive, and work through trauma, this is what is left.
Athena, I liked your take on Buddhism. Very interesting. I'm a Buddhist. One thing that is true is that there are (at least some) similarities between the enlightened state(s) we seek and the psychopathy you describe from your own experience. But they are not identical at all. An enormous part of Buddhist motivation is the wish to end not only one's own suffering, but the suffering of all others. This wish comes from the heart. I can't speak to every Buddhist's specific motivation, but for me, I wouldn't do what I do at the level of intensity I do it, without the clear prospect of helping others..And this wish comes from the heart (all that icky chemical stuff).
This loving kindness and compassion stuff is implicit in classical Buddhism but is at the heart of all the Mahayana disciplines. It's even at the heart of the stories about the Buddha himself. One of the most striking pieces of that story for me, is that once he had established himself as a teacher, he went back home and made it up to his family for running out on them.
I don't see him as a psychopath. Living on the road, sleeping outdoors, barefoot all the time, begging for his bread, teaching people, many of whom had to have been highly resistant to what he was trying to tell them, for 40 years, does not sound like the way you describe yourself.
But then in defense of what you had to say, I do not "know" this on any sort of intellectual level. No one does. For some three to five hundred years after the Buddha lived (depending on whose chronology of his life you accept) the Buddhists didn't write any of the stories or teachings down. So we have no "hard facts" on which to hang any of our stories or theories..
But in the end Buddhism is experiential. However well read one is, one cannot know Buddhism from outside. On one level it's a straight-up mind training program, and on another it's very much a religion. Most if not all we NT's as you note above, are hard-wired for that sort of thing. Also, uncanny things do happen from time to time. You've even copped to having had a few such experiences yourself.
But again,it's experiential. I have no idea what you would find if you sat down to meditate. It could be very interesting indeed, or it could be a total bore (I've experienced both). There are plenty of books and online spaces about how to do it, and depending on where you live, there is a variety of places in which you could learn in company. It might be worth a try to as we sometimes say, sit and see what arises.
Jun 15, 2022·edited Jun 15, 2022Liked by Athena Walker
“I mean, he might as well have placed a big neon sign over the tree with arrows pointing to it saying, ‘eat me eat me’.”
I laughed at that!
Pretty convenient how Cain was able to find a wife and have children with her after being banished to where he was too I’ve also long thought. If Adam and Eve were the only people to exist before Abel and he did how could this be possible? I also don’t see how the flood and Tower of Babel stories reflect the nature of an all perfect loving benevolent god either. All utter nonsense imho!
Jun 15, 2022·edited Jun 15, 2022Liked by Athena Walker
This was a good one. I was raised in a religious cult that eventually went horribly belly up, and for a while it turned me off from everything with even a whiff of spirituality. Knee jerk reactions and slammed shut mind.
But a little older and hopefully a tad wiser now, I recognize that there is more than just the physical in this universe. If you really look/feel, it’s obvious.
However, I still don’t listen to humans who say they have The Answers or “a corner on the market” of the afterlife or the meaning of life. That’s still NG to me.
Buddhism is interesting, and I know several people in my circle who are Buddhist. Sometimes they lack personal responsibility and humility under the guise of being a beacon of enlightenment and that…annoys me. Maybe they need to meditate some more, as you say.
As with any beliefs, if it makes them happy, I don’t mind. But if they try to influence my behavior, emotions, or thoughts, I very much do.
Imperfectly, I’m living as morally sound as I can. Do no harm, try to do some good, etc. If I learn something else down the road, so be it. But for now that’s enough.
I have been wondering about this since I started following you.
I had all the same questions and I have (over years) come to my own conclusions. I had to start from zero and figure it out from the inside out. I have noticed that most people’s complaint(s) with God are based on whichever religious mythos their culture accepts.
If you have no emotional basis for needing to believe in your image of God, go forth and prosper 😃.
Jun 14, 2022·edited Jun 14, 2022Liked by Athena Walker
I have always felt like there was "nothing" but came across instances that made me think there might be "something". Atheist my whole life, despite being raised around the religious, though I have a strong focus in morals and "the right path" as I learned it was later coined.
Your same questions on Christians have been the same ones I have also brought about.
I have never read that story regarding Tanzan, the one that relates to attachment within Buddhism, and it left me pondering quite a bit. But what I can say is: Buddhism helped me learn to detach so much, that I can not even feel hunger nor feel any emotion. It's at a level where I can barely control it. It's my Way of Being. Yet when I look back, I wonder if I ever felt any love at all. Any emotion at all. Or if this was just something I had learned to do, to feel.
Looking back, I never yelled or cried and was always so calm and collect. Always "driven" and "logical". Like an animal. Always able to make the tough calls, like parting ways with a pet when others may not even do what needed to be done - emotionless through it, and this was before I explored Buddhism.
I had to laugh at your behavior at church, as I think most children have those kinds of thoughts but are afraid to express them. My son and I have had numerous discussions about religion, he to relates to Buddhism. Personally I think native Americans have it closest to what is and what could be .
I should have responded to this post when the iron was hot. There is a lot of "decontamination" I could have done with respect to the Biblical texts and their use... but that will have to happen at another time.
I will get this off my chest: People's use of the biblical text or response to it is as often a diagnostic of the beholder as a second hand transmission of the text itself. Step back, take a breath, Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters (yes, that means kising cousins in the beginning*cough*founders effect*cough*) , analogical readings do serve a purpose but they aren't always right; however, related texts can elucidate which ones are; source language is VERY important as all translations are judgment calls and therefore also interpretations; the high council of "the gods" v. YHWH is a case where they accuse him of having bad judgment and YHWH vindicates himself when the whole thing is done; Most people do not learn that there are 2 parallel messages - law/condemnation and promise/hope which are related but distinct; I could go on, but it's the wrong time. Sorry for the grave-robbing...
Hm, how did I miss this? I must have been busy with a funeral or something...
People make inferences about what the Bible says all the time. It's bad form to "go beyond scripture" and yet most confessional stances do just that. I see this happening in your case. In fact, the biblical accounts are such that they create more questions than answers, except for the parts where directives, assertions, and encouragements from God ARE given... meanwhile there is a lot of stuff "God doesn't talk about" and it is best to leave it at that. That is hard for the vast majority of people. I have learned to do this with considerable difficulty but it's incredibly liberating and yields abundant insight.
That's interesting , I myself have tried "psychopathic meditation". Since I tend towards psychosis which I believe is the opposite of psychopathy.
One thing though to add to your theory , there is a modern misconception about the doctrine of Anatta (no-self). Buddhists take it as a fact: there is no self. But the original Pali Sutras always used anatta as an adjective, not a noun. That is: thoughts are anatta (not the self, not the atta/atman), feelings are anatta etc. But "the wise find refuge in the self (atta)". Why did modern Buddhism evolve to be against the self it's a bit puzzling
Jed McKenna is a perfect example of psychopathic spiritual teacher:
"My worldview is not informed by any teacher or teaching. I assert no belief, original or second-hand. I am not passing anything down that was passed down to me. Every square inch of my understanding comes from exploration, perception, reason, and logic. You might say there are higher ways of knowing than reason and logic, and being heart-centric, you might believe it, but it’s not true. It’s the heart that will mislead you, every time. Reason and logic drive me straight into the absolute certainty and inevitability of nonduality, and all else follows naturally from that. That's the way the world unfolds."
https://jedvaita.com/
"Frankly, it doesn’t matter what side of the aisle you are on in the religious space. Fully for, fully against, it’s still a belief. You will never know until you die, and you may not even know then."
This is exactly why I regard atheism (and Scientism, its most modern iteration) as a modern religion. They believe not having faith, but their faith involves believing in nothing insubstantial.
I'm a Omnist, myself. A meta believer, an apostle of Life.
I feel as though beliefs are of the essence, when it comes to shaping the believer, which is why institucionalized religions are invariably a two edged sword... that purports to liberate but ultimately ensnares adepts in paradoxes seemingly designed to arrest critical thought from the onset - as the ones from your Sunday school memories.
The true religious spirit ( as hinted in the etimology of the word) is all about reconnecting us incarnate souls to the unnamable Source, and overcoming all illusory attachments to this transient reality. This is observable in the philosophy of Buddhism indeed, although it's worth noting that it too has its own politized branches - much like other religions also usually have their philosophical merits.
I concur with your hypothesis that Buddhism may have been established by a well meaning person having the psychopathic mindset. At very least there are striking similarities in attitude between that and the enlighnened mind, as attested by Kevin Dutton. Well... at least, where it concerns the psychopathic mind that is not weighed down by hubris - for that which happended to be could very well decide to go the opposite direction, to become a cult leader.
I have no more particular attachment to the Adam and Eve story than I do to, say, a Greek myth. But do you mind if I take a crack at the interpretation? If such things are annoying just tell me and I'll stick to other topics in the future.
A lot of religious texts are esoteric and have a meaning behind the direct physical meaning.
Adam means "man" in Hebrew, from adamah (dirt.) So ... the physical stuff of humanity. Eve means 'eternal spirit.' So in the native Hebrew the story has a much more allegorical tone with two characters named "man" and "eternal spirit."
Child Athena asked: "How on earth are these two people supposed to understand the gravity of that tree or the choice that they are making?"
Eve wouldn't have understood before she ate the apple. But after she ate the apple she should have had knowledge. Despite this, she shared the apple with Adam. That was the only informed choice that was really made in the story, where a character both had knowledge of Good and Evil and also acted badly despite that knowledge. If Adam and Eve are individuals, it doesn't make sense if they're both punished. If Adam and Eve are humanity and its Eternal Spirit the allegory makes a bit more sense.
Of course, you were very right to point out the problems with your teachers telling you that God doesn't tempt people in the JudeoChristian tradition.
In any case, I think we both understand that Genesis is a story made up by a fallible human a very long time ago and the indoctrination of young children kindof sucks. In Sunday School I was told that the 'Red Sea' was actually the Reed Sea and that the Hebrews crossing it were able to do so because they were lighter than the chariots behind them. The miraculous re-telling came later, I was told. So there was a different tone to the education, with less focus on lockstep belief and literal interpretation. And I've probably had less of an aversion to religion because of it, though I'm by no means devout or orthodox.
In any case, I do like your interpretation of some strains of Buddhism. (I have heard you make the comparison before.)
The Koan makes far more overt sense than most Zen Koans.
I liked this post very much, thanks Athena.
I think my angular gyrus is not wired the NT way... it is connected to my perceptions of CHOCOLATE. Just saying. Dark chocolate, in particular.
I only know a few other autistics, but they don't seem to have the NT religious thing going on either... As a kid, I thought that belief would be nice to have, after viewing how certain it seemed to make some adults, but I could never actually feel it -- and I don't want to anymore after seeing more human behavior. I'd agree that the Buddha was likely not NT, but I'm not sure which neurotype he was... I know very little about Buddhism though, just going by the logic part you describe; some of us autistics have cognition a lot more separate from emotions than many NTs seem to. A difference between autistics and psychopaths might be that the latter would mostly have muted emotions - per your description - but some of us autistics have very strong emotions... for me, more in a bubble at times; I'm not "in" them always, but if they get very strong, they expand and include "me" in them. I bet that makes no sense... But my understanding of Buddhism would let me conclude that some autistics could find it very attractive/helpful.
I can feel a strong sense of wonder, beauty, and love, and I can feel a part of life and existence, sometimes, in a pretty wonderful way... but not the same way as people describe their connection to a personified deity... and I don't conflate my inner experiences with reality as much as some NTs. I think. Would I know? Hmmm, not sure.
Chocolate.
I too was raised in a very religious environment and also had lots of questions but I incorrectly deduced that there was something that they weren't telling me and I wanted to know what that could be so I was extremely patient with their bullshit
Until I wasn't
I laugh when I think about how long I abided with that foolishness now but it is what it is.
Lovely article Athena. I've had a similar hypothesis about the Buddha. I'd definitely be more interested in your thoughts on the similarities between psychopathy and Buddhism.
I have a different perspective on the Buddhist concept of enlightenment. Actually, the concept isn't unique to Buddhism - the public just associates thethe concept with Buddhism. The Bhagavad Gita leads up to Arjuna's enlightenment, and even the Bible speaks of it when you interpret it in a mystical way (the Bible has an infinite variety of interpretations).
Although there are the similarities that you note, there are also quite a few differences between psychopathy and enlightenment.
With enlightenment, there's no sense of individual self. It's real difficult to describe the experience, but it's a broadening of that sense of self to include everything that exists. I feel like my edges - whatever that means - are diffuse, but people tell me I'm more defined.
Because there's no sense of self, desires disappears. Desire served as motivation for action, but now, it's all immersed in flow.
The mind becomes very still. Thoughts arise, but theres no attachment, no identification with them. After a lifetime of defensive emotions and busy thoughts, I find the experience fascinating.
There's no compartmentalization. It's all one level, one awareness. The focus is on what's happening now, a moment-to-moment awareness. I don’t get bored. The last time I was bored when I was waiting for surgery a year ago - boredom came from nerves at that time.
My feeling is that this is our natural state. When we "make the unconscious conscious," as Jung suggested, refrain from judgment, forgive, and work through trauma, this is what is left.
Athena, I liked your take on Buddhism. Very interesting. I'm a Buddhist. One thing that is true is that there are (at least some) similarities between the enlightened state(s) we seek and the psychopathy you describe from your own experience. But they are not identical at all. An enormous part of Buddhist motivation is the wish to end not only one's own suffering, but the suffering of all others. This wish comes from the heart. I can't speak to every Buddhist's specific motivation, but for me, I wouldn't do what I do at the level of intensity I do it, without the clear prospect of helping others..And this wish comes from the heart (all that icky chemical stuff).
This loving kindness and compassion stuff is implicit in classical Buddhism but is at the heart of all the Mahayana disciplines. It's even at the heart of the stories about the Buddha himself. One of the most striking pieces of that story for me, is that once he had established himself as a teacher, he went back home and made it up to his family for running out on them.
I don't see him as a psychopath. Living on the road, sleeping outdoors, barefoot all the time, begging for his bread, teaching people, many of whom had to have been highly resistant to what he was trying to tell them, for 40 years, does not sound like the way you describe yourself.
But then in defense of what you had to say, I do not "know" this on any sort of intellectual level. No one does. For some three to five hundred years after the Buddha lived (depending on whose chronology of his life you accept) the Buddhists didn't write any of the stories or teachings down. So we have no "hard facts" on which to hang any of our stories or theories..
But in the end Buddhism is experiential. However well read one is, one cannot know Buddhism from outside. On one level it's a straight-up mind training program, and on another it's very much a religion. Most if not all we NT's as you note above, are hard-wired for that sort of thing. Also, uncanny things do happen from time to time. You've even copped to having had a few such experiences yourself.
But again,it's experiential. I have no idea what you would find if you sat down to meditate. It could be very interesting indeed, or it could be a total bore (I've experienced both). There are plenty of books and online spaces about how to do it, and depending on where you live, there is a variety of places in which you could learn in company. It might be worth a try to as we sometimes say, sit and see what arises.
“I mean, he might as well have placed a big neon sign over the tree with arrows pointing to it saying, ‘eat me eat me’.”
I laughed at that!
Pretty convenient how Cain was able to find a wife and have children with her after being banished to where he was too I’ve also long thought. If Adam and Eve were the only people to exist before Abel and he did how could this be possible? I also don’t see how the flood and Tower of Babel stories reflect the nature of an all perfect loving benevolent god either. All utter nonsense imho!
This was a good one. I was raised in a religious cult that eventually went horribly belly up, and for a while it turned me off from everything with even a whiff of spirituality. Knee jerk reactions and slammed shut mind.
But a little older and hopefully a tad wiser now, I recognize that there is more than just the physical in this universe. If you really look/feel, it’s obvious.
However, I still don’t listen to humans who say they have The Answers or “a corner on the market” of the afterlife or the meaning of life. That’s still NG to me.
Buddhism is interesting, and I know several people in my circle who are Buddhist. Sometimes they lack personal responsibility and humility under the guise of being a beacon of enlightenment and that…annoys me. Maybe they need to meditate some more, as you say.
As with any beliefs, if it makes them happy, I don’t mind. But if they try to influence my behavior, emotions, or thoughts, I very much do.
Imperfectly, I’m living as morally sound as I can. Do no harm, try to do some good, etc. If I learn something else down the road, so be it. But for now that’s enough.
[edited for typo]
I have been wondering about this since I started following you.
I had all the same questions and I have (over years) come to my own conclusions. I had to start from zero and figure it out from the inside out. I have noticed that most people’s complaint(s) with God are based on whichever religious mythos their culture accepts.
If you have no emotional basis for needing to believe in your image of God, go forth and prosper 😃.
I have always felt like there was "nothing" but came across instances that made me think there might be "something". Atheist my whole life, despite being raised around the religious, though I have a strong focus in morals and "the right path" as I learned it was later coined.
Your same questions on Christians have been the same ones I have also brought about.
I have never read that story regarding Tanzan, the one that relates to attachment within Buddhism, and it left me pondering quite a bit. But what I can say is: Buddhism helped me learn to detach so much, that I can not even feel hunger nor feel any emotion. It's at a level where I can barely control it. It's my Way of Being. Yet when I look back, I wonder if I ever felt any love at all. Any emotion at all. Or if this was just something I had learned to do, to feel.
Looking back, I never yelled or cried and was always so calm and collect. Always "driven" and "logical". Like an animal. Always able to make the tough calls, like parting ways with a pet when others may not even do what needed to be done - emotionless through it, and this was before I explored Buddhism.
I am exploring this, me, deeper.
I had to laugh at your behavior at church, as I think most children have those kinds of thoughts but are afraid to express them. My son and I have had numerous discussions about religion, he to relates to Buddhism. Personally I think native Americans have it closest to what is and what could be .
I should have responded to this post when the iron was hot. There is a lot of "decontamination" I could have done with respect to the Biblical texts and their use... but that will have to happen at another time.
I will get this off my chest: People's use of the biblical text or response to it is as often a diagnostic of the beholder as a second hand transmission of the text itself. Step back, take a breath, Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters (yes, that means kising cousins in the beginning*cough*founders effect*cough*) , analogical readings do serve a purpose but they aren't always right; however, related texts can elucidate which ones are; source language is VERY important as all translations are judgment calls and therefore also interpretations; the high council of "the gods" v. YHWH is a case where they accuse him of having bad judgment and YHWH vindicates himself when the whole thing is done; Most people do not learn that there are 2 parallel messages - law/condemnation and promise/hope which are related but distinct; I could go on, but it's the wrong time. Sorry for the grave-robbing...
Hm, how did I miss this? I must have been busy with a funeral or something...
People make inferences about what the Bible says all the time. It's bad form to "go beyond scripture" and yet most confessional stances do just that. I see this happening in your case. In fact, the biblical accounts are such that they create more questions than answers, except for the parts where directives, assertions, and encouragements from God ARE given... meanwhile there is a lot of stuff "God doesn't talk about" and it is best to leave it at that. That is hard for the vast majority of people. I have learned to do this with considerable difficulty but it's incredibly liberating and yields abundant insight.
That's interesting , I myself have tried "psychopathic meditation". Since I tend towards psychosis which I believe is the opposite of psychopathy.
One thing though to add to your theory , there is a modern misconception about the doctrine of Anatta (no-self). Buddhists take it as a fact: there is no self. But the original Pali Sutras always used anatta as an adjective, not a noun. That is: thoughts are anatta (not the self, not the atta/atman), feelings are anatta etc. But "the wise find refuge in the self (atta)". Why did modern Buddhism evolve to be against the self it's a bit puzzling