Why would a so-called loving god place such an awful punishment on a mere naming of him? Short answer is He did no such thing. The original injunction not to name Him was put in place by truly knowing beings, as a warning against the futility of any attempt to encase in words a concept which defies both words and mental conception. They knew that by sidestepping the mind’s urge to name what they knew to be absolutely unknowable, our hearts can remain open to communion with Him. Some, such as Buddhism, never allude to a god at all, which in hindsight seems to be a rather smart “middle way.” But of course, minds being as they are, those of us with god-centered religion settled on titles such as “He Who Shall Not Be Named” and “I am that I am”, which of course become names like Frank or Becci or Yahweh over time and we end up with God in a box.
Once in our mind box, it is only a matter of course that bibles, empires and fortunes begin to encrust around that box, as we search for ways of detailing the attributes of a god that is, from the time he is named onward, only ever a construct of the mind.
Such things are inevitable and no thought need be wasted lamenting it, but the one, glittering jewel buried beneath this mess has never changed. The Bible, the Quran, the Torah, the Tao Te-ching, the Bhagavad-Gita and so many other books of philosophy and religion have one quintessentially valuable thing in common. For all the Earthly controversy and turmoil that surrounds the meaning and interpretation of the words, all are unanimous in pointing towards something greater than anything we can know by mental effort alone. In Buddhist terms, all of these works are “fingers which point at the moon” and as such serve an invaluable function in raising the consciousness of those who study them, hopefully to the point were they stop being mesmerized by the fingers and turn and gaze fully upon that to which the fingers point.
It is when these great works of men become attributed to God himself, however, that we make the first leap away from the core function of the word itself. The word – these “fingers pointing” - can never be God or his words and the proposition that this or that finger is the moon itself is a crucial and fundamental misconception and the reason why things are the way they are in such matters.
Words are only ever the tools of humanity, as my mind sets about its chosen task of slicing and dicing the universe into manageable chunks I can then label. God has no use for words, as his “language” is the universe itself; a sunset, this flower, my daughter, if you choose to break it down. We are in communion always because I am also part of the universe and cannot but otherwise, but not through the workings of my mind operating alone.
If I am my mind then I will always mourn the absence of God and look vainly for his signs, like a fish swimming around in search of water. The truth is that we are never outside of his embrace, but to live in the head means being alone and it is this incompleteness that explains why my mind can never be satisfied and why it does the things it does because of that.
A declaration of “atheism” is merely an admission that I am living in my head and have closed myself off to the blatant expressions of a universe of intelligence beyond my intellectual capabilities. Using the limitations and contradictions between the word and behavior of people who act in the name of this or that religion to rationalize a closed mind is an excuse, albeit satisfying to the ego for a time. I know because that was very much me. “They are wrong, therefore there is no God.” Or “who could love a God who creates/tolerates such miseries as abound in this world!” This is of course a reflection of the fundamental misconception that religions and their books have direct agency agreements with God – or, the atheist is lending religion the very credibility it claims and merely chooses otherwise.
If I am looking for proof of God in the outward encrustations of form then I am using the wrong tool. I am looking with the mind for that which my mind isn’t equipped to “see” unaided. It is the same as the eye looking for color in the ultraviolet spectrum. The eye is simply not configured to do it.
Of course, we now have tools that can see ultraviolet for us. The good news here is that we also have, at our ready disposal, tools for communion with God. But, because of the delicious irony that these tools are slapping us in the face 24-7, we almost completely overlook them or -accustomed to and expecting the complex as we do- simply cannot minimize our focus to “get it.” Having been steeped in God by interpretations of teachers who know Her, we respond with “Oh, ok. Yeah” and yet, because of its apparent simplicity we think about it, rather than actually doing, and thus experiencing what they tell us.
Jesus told his people to “consider the lilies of the field.” Many others have invited us to do similar. Stare at the night sky and, instead of focusing on the stars and the patterns they evoke – as awe-inspiring as they should be anyway- try looking instead at the forever around them. These invitations to open the self, to stop not-experiencing God first hand have been with us forever and yet in the simplicity of their divine perfection we almost completely miss it.
Almost.
Laughter is another tool of enlightenment. Certain types of humor take me outside of my normal, sober mindset and offer glimpses of the sheer magnitude of absurdity that abounds in everyday life. As such, it is a truly spiritual experience. One of the greatest aspects of comedy and our ability to laugh is that, we tend to laugh at things the loudest which are otherwise too unpalatable to focus upon when sober. The very best comedians are people who take the world that we have made and confront us with it in ways that very pointedly demonstrate our collective or individual folly. As such, comedians have a recognized social dispensation to speak the unspeakable, to throw back in our face the consequences of ego. They are real journalists, who go to war zones and come back to tell it like they see it. They are the little child who stands up, points at the emperor on parade and says, “Hey, he’s naked!”
And now I understand why my ego keeps chattering, for it is only in those rare moments when it shuts the hell up that I stop trying to shut Him out.
Ego this!
Being of the mind yet located nowhere within it, my ego is also the only aspect of my mind capable of taking the mind beyond itself. In the unenlightened mind, the ego paddles around its confines, remaking the universe every second of every day to keep itself at the center of its finiteness ("finity"...?) – a Herculean and yet ultimately pointless task.
Its pointlessness is in the fact that it will one day die. The ego knows death is out there and feeds this fear into the mind daily but, being ego-centric, we assume this death means the end of this organism. This is not quite the same as Ego’s definition of death, however. To Ego, because it is the very root cause of its universe, death merely means its own extinction, regardless of what happens to its ‘host’ organism.
For Ego to admit of a universe outside of itself mean its own death, because it cannot conceive of a universe without itself as the center.
But Ego is by no means my enemy. It is merely operating within its parameters of knowledge and assumptions. Having once experienced it for ourselves, we can all know that “attitude is everything” and yet this is a completely ego-oriented tool. If I can convince myself that something I once called “bad” is now “good” or at least “a valuable experience, in and of itself,” then what I have experienced is an inversion of my reality. The key to this that is often lost is that, if I can do this with one tiny thing then I am really capable of turning the universe completely upside down –which is what I do everyday anyway, except I call it “learning,” or “growth” or “maturity,” which allows me to sidestep any annoying inconsistency issues. “I just don’t feel that way anymore.” “I know better now.”
But even refusing to admit of a universe beyond the mind, who can say that they have never experienced anything which they can admit at least may be beyond possible intellectual comprehension? In ancient times, lightning, thunder and sudden and inexplicable events were handballed to the gods as a means of explaining, or at least comforting us about the unexplainable. But becoming able to explicate so many of these very natural phenomenon has been syllogistically seized upon as a basis for debunking religion and spirituality.
And yes, we do seem to know so much more now about the universe, but we still really have no idea about how much we simply do not know. Even applying logic here, if we do not know some things then we also have to admit to having no idea about the magnitude of this not-knowing. How many things don’t we know? Therefore, although we can feel good about the hard nuts we have managed to crack with the power of focused intellects,for all we know all of that may just be as a drop in a very vast ocean.
This reminds me of the story of the chief of the US patent office, whose hubris led to the bold claim over a century ago that “pretty well everything of importance has now been discovered.”
Even a drop of cleansing humility would allow us to wholeheartedly admit that true knowledge is therefore very limited.
So how is Ego also then the tool of my salvation? Simple, but earth-shattering – in Ego terms. The mere admission that “there’s a whole lot more out there than there is in here,” is a sufficient starting point. It was the first step towards my awakening, from a very deep and troubled slumber.
Having understood this seemingly small but significant truth brought with it new troubles of its own. Having accepted the above as possibility slowly opened my eyes, to the point where it wasn’t long before it became incontrovertible fact. Have you ever noticed how, when you buy a certain type of car, you suddenly start noticing them everywhere you go? It is exactly the same phenomenon, which I explain this way: Ego makes its living out of breaking down the otherwise (to itself) indigestible universe into bite-sized morsels. It categorizes and classifies things, comparing and deducting points of similarity to bring its focus onto points of difference. Therefore it is basically a tool of discrimination, in the true meaning of that word. It tells things apart.
My heart on the other hand is always likening one thing to another. It knows beauty in my daughter, at three and a half, sitting on a rock in a field with disheveled hair and morning eyes, singing her own little song as she waits for me to make breakfast and it equates it with the rain, a flower and all of God’s manifestations we can manage to split from the undivided whole for our analysis.
Taking the car analogy just a little further: in the instant I see another of my car in the street, my first response is Heart’s “Oh, look, another one!” which is then quickly supplanted by Ego’s “He got the one with all the options!” and a little resultant pang of jealousy.
Faith. We hear of the “leap of faith” and the image is very clear. In whatever situation it applies, it necessarily involves looking into the abyss and, without being certain of the outcome, we launch ourselves into it anyway. It is most conspicuously present in religion, where non-believers are told that they must exercise faith in order to open their hearts to a god they can’t perceive with their senses. The very act of making this leap is to deliver themselves into God’s loving embrace.
This is where the mind-centered person has the greatest challenge, and if I am even open to the possibility of God, then I have already begun the transition towards a heart-first life. But if I am one who is only open to the data stream of his mind and senses, to me there will be no evidence. Therefore I would not exercise faith in that first step, but rather hope and so my leap is rather one of hope.
Faith arrives only after hope has opened me to allow in more of the data stream. I ‘increase my bandwidth’ so to speak. To do so is to become receptive to more of the data stream of the non-material universe, which is presumably one with the intelligence behind the material universe as well. When I do so, such phenomenon begins to register. It is at this time that faith begins to replace hope, and that faith is in that what I am now experiencing is both real and of a significance such that I am then able to invoke a possible first cause: God.
Faith then is not something we leap into, it is rather a bridge that takes us between our leap of hope and knowing; between mind and heart. Faith is the word used by so many religions to shepherd their flocks into the grazing ground of their particular doctrine. They dangle the carrot of knowing God as the end of putting our very souls into the service of those doctrines, but -somewhat perversely- usually only after our physical death.
It is what lends authority to popes and prophets and separates humanity into hierarchies of communion with God. It is also the very thing that keeps the ‘faithful’ from ever coming to truly know God. They are trapped on that bridge, trying hard to be faithful and having to make do with the occasional spark hitting their heart from the far side of that bridge. Because they don’t know God.
They can be absolutely sincere in their faith, but they see the way to God as being through conditions of faith and codes of behavior determined by the very leaders and sages responsible for keeping them trapped there. The faith of the leaders and sages is also not in question. Nor their strength. It takes a very great will to remain faithful in the absence of knowing.
If I hold in front of me a book, I can see, feel, smell and even taste it, if I choose. It is real. In this case I do not need to exercise one jot of faith in that book at all.
It is, of course, the very same with God. If everything around and in me is one with God, in reality is God, then wherein such circumstance is the necessity for faith? It is indeed an essential step in the journey back to conscious communion, but falls far short when it becomes an end in itself. Many religions counsel that the notion of such utter communion with God is reserved for the elite, the Christ the prophets and some or all the dead. Further, some would even go as far as to label heretic or apostate the unanointed who would assert such as truth. Of course there are very explicable political reasons for such a result, for to realize heaven as being already here, with us on this Earth as well as everywhere else, would simply put a lot of people out of work.
I understand that offering such as I have written herein collides with much of established religion. I do so without disrespect for the faith and intention of those adherents to which such is just wrong. I assert no claim of absolute truth for the things I write, I merely seek to communicate my personal journey towards oneness with God, which would feel incomplete to me without also visiting with the well-established and widely-publicized journeys of others. For others may have started with similar questions, longings and data streams. Pragmatically, I believe that it is just such contributions as this, from individuals everywhere, which serve all humanity by keeping spiritual matters fresh and topical in a world where fresh and topical is what engages the ego-driven mind. Fresh and topical strikes sparks that catches Ego’s attention. In such things, I must agree with the minds behind advertising and promotion that “there is no such thing as bad publicity.” But rest assured that I am not interested in another church nor do I offer any doctrine as the basis for one. This is just my journey.
And I need not burn these bridges of faith behind me. Rather, I must remain open to the new flow of traffic between heart and mind, conjoining the two in union with what is then known and making them one. It would be an apostasy most insane for me to, once having come to know God, to then and for whatever reason fall back into the madness of egocentric living.
So why am I here? I believe it to be no coincidence that we are that we are: born into mind-centered societies that, with often so many good intentions to the contrary, create so much misery by and for their citizens and neighbors. Dogs never birth kittens and so it is inevitable that egotistical individuals will build egotistical societies, which can be easily defined as any which overlays an “us and them” mentality in its citizens and sub-divides itself further into hierarchical strata. That obviously encompasses every society on this planet!
But this is no accident, for we are configured this way, yet not without our heart-beacon, that will guide us if we can but surrender our ego to it. The question is then, “Why would God do this?” and the answer is neither original to me nor at all complex. N.D. Walsche put it very eloquently in his work and so I will use that as a source. He wrote to the effect that, being one and at the same time everything gave God no reference point for being able to experience Her magnificence. To enable that to happen and using Herself as the raw materials, He created this universe as we find it. Also, rather than make our oneness with Him a given, how much more beautiful is it for each tiny spark of that magnificence to have as its prime motivating program the journey to take it home, back to the re-discovery of the one Self; the return to the ocean of which we are each but a tiny thimbleful of water and separated only by this thin veil of flesh?
To experience this as a human is the very highest order of sublime. Imagine, then, God’s joy every single time one of us finds his or her own way home? With death of the ‘host’ organism the final outcome of this life, we all eventually find our way back to the Source anyway, so all experience during this life is then of no ultimate consequence. As Shakespeare said, “all the world’s a stage” and there is no ultimate “good” or “bad” except in our thoughts. Transcending such duality in this life and coming to know God before our physical death is of an order of magnitude beyond any other possible human experience and an event such that must change one’s life forever. Kierkegaard believed that any person with a true knowledge of God would spend the rest of his life on his knees in prayerful supplication to Him, but that seems framed in typically Christian way.
I cannot imagine a god who would spend the time She has building such a universe wanting that of His creations. Why then would we have been given legs? He has no need for our devotions or piety. Being God, who is all and created all, what is on or of this tiny Earth that we could ever offer Him, that He does not already own? My young son taking my hairbrush, wrapping it and giving it back to me on my birthday is touching and sweet, but it is the hug I get with it that gives me the only joy I feel. The gift is a needless gesture and I surmise that God likewise has no such requirement.
Furthermore, She cares nothing for the games we make of our socially embedded selfishness, suffering, sickness and slaughter. It is I who create and manifest these things, as a part of the utter free will with which I was born and thus is it I who must either suffer or transcend them, but transcendence first requires the help of heart-centered thought.
To then curse and deride such an apparently callous, unloving God is to entirely miss the point: we are here that we might re-discover our fundamental oneness, or not. Either is fine with God. The pain and suffering – as much as the joy and love- is the path I have chosen to get there, not God. On what basis would He ever choose to intervene in my exercise of the free will He gave me?
The path of the ego divides and isolates us from one another and thus from our ability to know God, yet who among us has never shared even the most fleeting moment of oneness with another human, in whatever form that takes? These are clues about the true power and glory inherent in God meeting Himself. Such communion is a manifestation of God, an open revelation to all who see with their heart. To recognize this and then turn towards and further foster these small acts of communion will lead me away from my ego and into my heart, where all will be revealed.
It is the exploration of this experience which forms the basis for some book I might write, were I able to focus myself for more than these blog-sized fragments of time.
One of the greatest acts of love we can offer another human is our absolute and undivided attention. Parents often do this with their children. Lovers do, for a time. In effect we put these others before ourselves. If people did this as a way of living, unfettered by ego-centrism, then whose Earthly needs would not thus be met? We would all become the parent of every other, we might all be the lover of a collective humanity.
Heart-centered living offers a much different set of priorities to those of the ego. Ego is by nature insecure and thus craves security, where Heart feels no such thing. Just look at the immense security apparatus of tribe, ownership, nation and empire with which ego-centered societies have subjugated others who had no need! These others are perceived as “weak” to the ego-centred power, but this so-called weakness is only ever manifested by the exercise of domination over it, it is not at all an inherent quality of such a society itself, certainly not a “flaw.”
But even with these empires, the need for security grows more dire, to protect “us” from the other empires that are still there. The end game of this trend is the subjugation of all under one flag, but even having accomplished such an awful thing, with the ego still in place, the inevitability is that it will eventually disintegrate and start all over again. Who cannot see the truth of this?
Pain. It seems such a fundamental thing. Buddhism says it is “inevitable.” But there seems room for an alternative interpretation, one of pain as a secondary sensation.
If I feel physical pain, at base I am experiencing an intense sensory input that terminates where all nerve endings meet, in my brain and which serves by demanding my attention. There are as couple of evolutionary functions of pain: it informs me of trauma to my body and slows me down to prevent exacerbating it. If my pain is to the extent that I scream out, then it also advertises my situation to both rescuers and predators, so at least somebody ends up happy. In response to pain I can choose to act according to my learning and experience of pain or, by exercise of will, discipline or habit, push it into my subconscious. We generally equate physical pain with unpleasantness, but some people are known to associate pleasure with even intense physical pain – as happens with certain religious and sexual practices.
If I am feeling emotional pain, then at base I am experiencing an intense emotional sensation that serves by demanding my attention. All emotional responses are in accordance with my interpretation of phenomenon, which is why not all people respond to a given phenomenon in the same way. Some cultures, for example, see death as the final liberation of the soul and thus rejoice when a member of their society departs, while others feel loss and sorrow. So pain’s demand for my attention will result in me acting according to my learning and experience or, by exercise of will, discipline or habit, push it into my subconscious. We often equate emotional pain with unpleasantness, but if it is possible that some people associate pleasure with even intense emotional pain – as happens with manic depressives and others said to be in some way psychotic – then it is also possible that all responses to emotional pain are learned, not inherent.
And if I try to use my head to intellectually conjure up suppositions of another’s pain then pain of any sort that results will also be in accordance with my own understanding of pain and not necessarily relevant to the pain experienced by the object of my compassion. It is a projection. In such cases, I am merely trying to “imagine what it feels like,” and not actually empathizing.
These all point towards pain being a mental phenomenon, primarily, and not something of the heart. If the heart is really our “love-muscle” then, while it may empathize to the point of feeling another’s pain or joy, that response is not “native” to the heart, rather it is the one, true compassion. If God is love and my heart is the interface between God and this world, then it is also possible that, while the heart itself knows no pain or suffering, it may nonetheless feel compassion for the pain and suffering of my own mind, just as much as the pain and suffering of other minds, via other hearts. The heart as fiber-optic jack into God’s data stream!
Like so many before I would offer a deconstruction of what Jesus was reported to have said. “Wherever two or more are gathered in communion of the heart then God is there.” Look around our world and see what communion of mind have wrought. Our hearts are spiritual nodes. When two or more hearts find their connection, that is God. It is why we are here. It is what we are all looking for and what we shall one day find.
No comments:
Post a Comment