Religion, in and of itself, can be a cause for much goodwill and happiness when defined, in Merriam-Webster terms, as a "personal set or...of attitudes, beliefs and practice."
However, the second part of that definition "...or instiutionalized system... of attitudes, beliefs..." seems to be the cause of much historical, and present-day, grief and suffering.
I notice that many do attempt a degree of detachment to actual institutionalized belief systems (since institutionalized religion cannot possibly exist without instituting a set of beliefs as defining the purpose of the institution) but still participate in the "communal" aspect of sharing parts of the codified system while seemingly avoiding other parts. This seems to point to the natural inclination to join or engage with a feeling of wholeness and inclusion which transcends all belief systems.
Institutions appear to conform more to exclusion through membership and heirarchical parts within the membership that have greater or lesser significance and, as such, discriminate based on that imposed significance.
I would imagine that this deep desire of communion (under God?) would result in much internalized stress from the fear of being discovered as not adhering to the institutionalized beliefs in whole, but only in part.
In my involvement with churches in the past (a brief involvement with Lutheran, Mennonite, Unitarian and Unity sects) my stress was more related to my own personal feeling of inauthenticity which resulted in my need to separate from the institutuions entirely, (however, I have maintained ongoing personal relationships with many of the adherents, especially with the Unity sect which adheres closer to my personal beliefs).
I suppose the question remains as to how one can posiibly participate in institutionalized religion and continue to be true to a personal calling or that internal voice ("Holy Spirit"?) which may have other plans or resonate with other diverging beliefs.
Personally, I have adopted a belief system which allows for much freedom of movement, and margin for error, for which institutionalized religion can not possibly permit and still allow for membership.
Therefore, I have found in darn near impossible to be a member of any religious club that would have me as a member.
Yet , this may not be the same for everyone and I merely present this for further discussion
Monday, March 31, 2008
Integralism and Spiral Dynamics
Models such as the various "integral" perspectives are excellent for identifying agents of positive change in all levels of "world." Wilber's focus on the greater communication between all quadrants and levels is to be applauded and studied.
However, I do feel that we cannot deny the potential for these stages/levels to be employed to differentiate and discriminate between individuals and groups. This is fine in theory, yet could it lead to actual division and discrimination and not just theoretical differentiating?
Many attempt to portray the "integral" from a pure perspective, untainted by the proclivities of ego (collective/individual). I can see how Spiral Dynamics, through a pure integral view, is effective in theory, but I suppose I question whether it could be employed to in some way to discriminate literally.
Could stage or level related differentials be employed societally through the use of an Spiral Dynamics perspective?
The fact that we probably never meet an individual with identifiable SD stage characteristics will not impede the need for many to box in or "cage" others through that model. It seems the ego's need to differentiate seems omnipresent and if we say that, if ego becomes involved then it is not "integral," (or it lower tiered) does this mean that integral can only be formulated theoretically and thus, cannot be implemented in the world? The overlapping of colors is an actuality, while the demand to concretely define colors and attribute these definitions to actual individuls and groups may lead to problems. No?
Content vs. Forms
I believe the important distinction is content vs. form. There are seemingly infinite "forms" (Christ Mind embodied) through which content is conveyed (the message of Christ Mind). The analogy I have heard used in the past is that it's like a beautiful picture frame that is so hypnotic and engaging that we miss the painting that the frame holds and is essentially the frames only purpose.
In my opinion religions which engage solely or obsessively with "form" must then fail to adequately interpret the message or "content" that the forms only serve as conveyance. Therefore, we need to re-interpret the Christian content through formlessness.
So here goes...
I believe the "Second Coming" is a return of the message or "content" that will come in numerous and varied "forms," each form tailored to convey the message through whatever form or path one chooses to accept. The content remains the SAME, always and everywhere.
From that "Second Coming" through seemingly infinite "forms" will be only one content or message and that is the "Final Judgement."
I believe that the content of this "Final Judgment" will convey the simple idea that "judgment" is UNnecessary and we no longer need to SEE reality and each other in that way.
Man (humanity) no longer need "judge" man, and thus, "vengeance IS God's" since it was never made for man (so why did man make it?) and if judgment is no longer needed, vengeance cannot exist.
Therefore, we simply transfer vengeance back to God (along with judgment) and God will simply delete it, since God does NOT judge, therefore vengeance was never required, we just thought it was (in fact we made it all up from imagination and, as such, it is purely delusional). Silly humans that we are...
Just my attempt at re-interpreting the entire "content" (the main point) of Christianity...
In my opinion religions which engage solely or obsessively with "form" must then fail to adequately interpret the message or "content" that the forms only serve as conveyance. Therefore, we need to re-interpret the Christian content through formlessness.
So here goes...
I believe the "Second Coming" is a return of the message or "content" that will come in numerous and varied "forms," each form tailored to convey the message through whatever form or path one chooses to accept. The content remains the SAME, always and everywhere.
From that "Second Coming" through seemingly infinite "forms" will be only one content or message and that is the "Final Judgement."
I believe that the content of this "Final Judgment" will convey the simple idea that "judgment" is UNnecessary and we no longer need to SEE reality and each other in that way.
Man (humanity) no longer need "judge" man, and thus, "vengeance IS God's" since it was never made for man (so why did man make it?) and if judgment is no longer needed, vengeance cannot exist.
Therefore, we simply transfer vengeance back to God (along with judgment) and God will simply delete it, since God does NOT judge, therefore vengeance was never required, we just thought it was (in fact we made it all up from imagination and, as such, it is purely delusional). Silly humans that we are...
Just my attempt at re-interpreting the entire "content" (the main point) of Christianity...
Global Enlightenment
I believe it's quite easy to list all the numerous "external conditions" conducive to an enlightened state, particularly through a global perspective. However, it seems to be a moot point that can be argued on ad infinitum (and frequently is). The world has many "visionaries" dead and alive, and although these "visions" often seem to be partially implemented, they are often laboriously slow in changing our shared paradigm.
It seems that society/culture tends to absorb radical viewpoints and by "dumbing" them down, make them part of the prevailing paradigm/myth. Thus, "pieces" of the radical view are extracted and worked into the prevailing paradigm which seems to thereby invalidate any radical change as advocated by the original viewpoint.
In addition, I think Freud formulated some excellent theories (still in use, yet barely) in relation to fear and how a fearful society "sublimates" what is perceived as social deviance (and let's face it, there are many highly advanced "spiritual" theories out there, that are seen by the whole of society as "deviating" from the norm), thereby making it a part of the shared view (we are beginning to see this occur with Wilber's theories).
The individual ego employs many types of "defense mechanisms" to protect against fear (or "anxiety" as the Freudians contend, yet I would argue that it is all fear, no matter what symptomatic label you might affix in order to minimize and thereby normalize).
In fact, could we state, from a spiritual "world as illusion" perspective, that the world is one big "reaction formation"? Thus we have an unconscious (subconscious?) desire for reunification with our Source/God, yet in fear, we move in the opposite direction, thereby intensifying and fixating on the illusion. Thus, through defense mechanisms the world maintains itself solidly fixated on avoiding the fear of losing its mass identity as 'world' (and all those subsequent "little" identities within the whole). Thus, it must continue to "intellectualize," "dissociate," "displace" and "repress" (level 4 defense mechanisms) any and all deeper 'truth" in order to maintain its external sensory perceptive paradigm.
Therefore, just as the individual needs to focus on negative emotions the 'world' must assume the same process. My belief is that the individual can only attain a heightened state of consciousness by examining his/her defense mechanisms or those internal processes (a few listed above) that obstruct from arranging internal conditions conducive to this state of consciousness. Simply recognizing these defenses is the start of the process of extinguishing them and thereby moving closer to internal truth only available through intuitive modes of understanding.
This same process is necessary on a global scale to thereby allow the conditions of higher states of consciousness, no matter what "tier" one seems fixed in, simply through recognition of the defenses used in avoidance of deeper global/universal "truth." Any theory which addresses "defense mechanisms" on a global scale may have relevance to more individuals since it becomes absorbed by the prevailing paradigm (I like Wilber's attempt, but I feel it is lacking in concentrated focus on such defenses and tends, at times to be "all over the place") and this thereby allows for the conditions supportive to excelerated states of consciousness within whole populations.
It seems that society/culture tends to absorb radical viewpoints and by "dumbing" them down, make them part of the prevailing paradigm/myth. Thus, "pieces" of the radical view are extracted and worked into the prevailing paradigm which seems to thereby invalidate any radical change as advocated by the original viewpoint.
In addition, I think Freud formulated some excellent theories (still in use, yet barely) in relation to fear and how a fearful society "sublimates" what is perceived as social deviance (and let's face it, there are many highly advanced "spiritual" theories out there, that are seen by the whole of society as "deviating" from the norm), thereby making it a part of the shared view (we are beginning to see this occur with Wilber's theories).
The individual ego employs many types of "defense mechanisms" to protect against fear (or "anxiety" as the Freudians contend, yet I would argue that it is all fear, no matter what symptomatic label you might affix in order to minimize and thereby normalize).
In fact, could we state, from a spiritual "world as illusion" perspective, that the world is one big "reaction formation"? Thus we have an unconscious (subconscious?) desire for reunification with our Source/God, yet in fear, we move in the opposite direction, thereby intensifying and fixating on the illusion. Thus, through defense mechanisms the world maintains itself solidly fixated on avoiding the fear of losing its mass identity as 'world' (and all those subsequent "little" identities within the whole). Thus, it must continue to "intellectualize," "dissociate," "displace" and "repress" (level 4 defense mechanisms) any and all deeper 'truth" in order to maintain its external sensory perceptive paradigm.
Therefore, just as the individual needs to focus on negative emotions the 'world' must assume the same process. My belief is that the individual can only attain a heightened state of consciousness by examining his/her defense mechanisms or those internal processes (a few listed above) that obstruct from arranging internal conditions conducive to this state of consciousness. Simply recognizing these defenses is the start of the process of extinguishing them and thereby moving closer to internal truth only available through intuitive modes of understanding.
This same process is necessary on a global scale to thereby allow the conditions of higher states of consciousness, no matter what "tier" one seems fixed in, simply through recognition of the defenses used in avoidance of deeper global/universal "truth." Any theory which addresses "defense mechanisms" on a global scale may have relevance to more individuals since it becomes absorbed by the prevailing paradigm (I like Wilber's attempt, but I feel it is lacking in concentrated focus on such defenses and tends, at times to be "all over the place") and this thereby allows for the conditions supportive to excelerated states of consciousness within whole populations.
Do We Worship Science?
Science permeates our existence pervasively from the electronics we employ to the electric power used to generate those appliances(and this just touches the surface). In fact, I would go as far as to say that we revere science more then God, since if the power grid is for some reason unavailable to us, we will experience it as an entire population and the remonstrance of our suffering would be defeaning.
Our reverence of science is unconscious and only experienced in its absence while it seems God must be consciously invoked, and almost worked, on to be experienced (except for the select few who claim permanence to that experience).
Both quantum and string theory are theoretical, as is God, to most, therefore I question the relevance of these theories in the employment for change.
In this sense, it seems clear that science is a god and this is not merely my perspective but many great minds, including Einstein, verbalized apprehension about this fact.
If actions speak louder then words, our actions demonstrate where our loyalties lie and I stand by my assertion that we, in fact, do "worship" science.
I suppose you would not need to know anyone who "worships" science. We need simply examine our absolute reliance of science for our very existence (even the atheist has something to revere). If only God were relied on in such a way, possibly then science would no longer be unnecessary.
Our reverence of science is unconscious and only experienced in its absence while it seems God must be consciously invoked, and almost worked, on to be experienced (except for the select few who claim permanence to that experience).
Both quantum and string theory are theoretical, as is God, to most, therefore I question the relevance of these theories in the employment for change.
In this sense, it seems clear that science is a god and this is not merely my perspective but many great minds, including Einstein, verbalized apprehension about this fact.
If actions speak louder then words, our actions demonstrate where our loyalties lie and I stand by my assertion that we, in fact, do "worship" science.
I suppose you would not need to know anyone who "worships" science. We need simply examine our absolute reliance of science for our very existence (even the atheist has something to revere). If only God were relied on in such a way, possibly then science would no longer be unnecessary.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Combined Rage
Quantum Physics (currently only eccentric branches of the field, however, that may change as the theory gains greater acceptance) may be taking us to a point where the old empirical adage, "seeing is believing" may no longer be relevant in a world where belief may be the determining factor in the arrangment of "quanta" (packets of energy) as manifest form.
If our mutually agreed upon paradigm of reality changes (remember when the world was flat) this may result in a complete breakdown in the current paradigm which has created and maintained individuated beliefs of self-interest.
I would only suggest that in our SEEING of a world in crisis we alter our filters of perception so that our ACTING for change reflects more deep seated spritual principles that conform to a greater oneness.
I believe we are moving in that direction and the recent proclamations by the Dalai Lama (engaging in unity, no matter the political conditions), the Catholic Church (new framing of evil/sin) and other shapers of belief, highlight this movement. If we could only believe it can be possible. Unfortunately, external reality seems to demonstrate that it is NOT.
I think we need to recognize that the capitalist paradigm of self-interest is a paradigm we all are involved in and continue to perpetuate. Therefore, we are as much to blame in the actions of governmental bodies. If we attack those who control power, we attack ourselves and this obstructs the evolution of a spiritual paradigm (based on a deeper sense of truth, then what we see and hear) which may correct our current erroneous interpretations. However, I agree we should act fast to incorporate this paradigm as a filter of our perceptions.
Otherwise, our combined rage at ourselves will surely seal our fate.
I know... I'm just a silly, ignorant idealist who is choosing to ignore the "actual" reality of the situation.
Just pay no attention to my rantings...
mike S
If our mutually agreed upon paradigm of reality changes (remember when the world was flat) this may result in a complete breakdown in the current paradigm which has created and maintained individuated beliefs of self-interest.
I would only suggest that in our SEEING of a world in crisis we alter our filters of perception so that our ACTING for change reflects more deep seated spritual principles that conform to a greater oneness.
I believe we are moving in that direction and the recent proclamations by the Dalai Lama (engaging in unity, no matter the political conditions), the Catholic Church (new framing of evil/sin) and other shapers of belief, highlight this movement. If we could only believe it can be possible. Unfortunately, external reality seems to demonstrate that it is NOT.
I think we need to recognize that the capitalist paradigm of self-interest is a paradigm we all are involved in and continue to perpetuate. Therefore, we are as much to blame in the actions of governmental bodies. If we attack those who control power, we attack ourselves and this obstructs the evolution of a spiritual paradigm (based on a deeper sense of truth, then what we see and hear) which may correct our current erroneous interpretations. However, I agree we should act fast to incorporate this paradigm as a filter of our perceptions.
Otherwise, our combined rage at ourselves will surely seal our fate.
I know... I'm just a silly, ignorant idealist who is choosing to ignore the "actual" reality of the situation.
Just pay no attention to my rantings...
mike S
Friday, March 28, 2008
More on the Brain-Mind Dilemma
Eventually, while on a "spiritual" path, I think one must question the general assumptions of the scientific worldview. Of course, the brain is known and, although I cannot see my brain (accept through MRI, Catscan, etc,) I have seen other "brains" and must deduce that I too have a brain and science has incontrovertibly determined that the brain is the seat of all functioning. The neuronet sends electrochemical charges throughout the organ which, in easily explainable cause and effect style, results in my actions and even feelings.
Yet, note that science has not necassarily identified brain activity as producing thought only the feelings and actions subsequent to thought since only that can be measured. We can measure feelings based on the reports of the subject and changes in blood pressure, pupil dilation etc, etc, and of course we can measure actions and reflexes, but we cannot measure thought with any degree of confidence in the measurements. You cannot see or touch a "thought" or a "thinking process."
However, we do believe all actions and feelings are subsequent to and a product of thought, yet we still do not, with any degree of scientific credibility, know that thought exists (although we take it as common knowledge that we all think and even descartes gave us that truth).
If the quantum theorists could prove that thought is the building block of reality (which is essentially what they seem to be saying currently) that may include the brain as subsequent to thought and as simply the necessary container from which to maintain our belief in a body and a belief in a separate individual "self." Did we think the "brain" into existence?
The problem with the "consciousness from brain" theory, for me, is that it reduces us to objective mechanisms and thus continuously defines us as secluded from one another and from Source Mind or God. However, with that said, since I'm no enlightened master, I must admit that I continue to function as if the seat of my thought processes are purely brain-related.
Yet it is also important to note that we currently tend to believe we all have an "ego" and a "subconscious" yet these two concepts remain only abstract concepts since as of yet science can only speculate as to the location of these aspects of "self" within "brain." But science does believe they exist almost definitively.
Thus, if I am a brain, how come we can't locate my ego or my subconscious? Where are they located within the organ that is supposed to define ME? Where is the thought that supposedly emanates or originates from these "sources"?
This may sound silly but keep in mind that pretty much the entire science of psychology is based on these two massive assumptions, that we have an ego and a subconscious, that cannot with any degree of scientific validity be proven. This is troubling since I have never seen or touched either an "ego" or a "subconscious" and I have read of no research that has done so. But I have read much that assumes they both exist conclusively.
So what does this all mean!
Who knows!
Thanks
mike S
Yet, note that science has not necassarily identified brain activity as producing thought only the feelings and actions subsequent to thought since only that can be measured. We can measure feelings based on the reports of the subject and changes in blood pressure, pupil dilation etc, etc, and of course we can measure actions and reflexes, but we cannot measure thought with any degree of confidence in the measurements. You cannot see or touch a "thought" or a "thinking process."
However, we do believe all actions and feelings are subsequent to and a product of thought, yet we still do not, with any degree of scientific credibility, know that thought exists (although we take it as common knowledge that we all think and even descartes gave us that truth).
If the quantum theorists could prove that thought is the building block of reality (which is essentially what they seem to be saying currently) that may include the brain as subsequent to thought and as simply the necessary container from which to maintain our belief in a body and a belief in a separate individual "self." Did we think the "brain" into existence?
The problem with the "consciousness from brain" theory, for me, is that it reduces us to objective mechanisms and thus continuously defines us as secluded from one another and from Source Mind or God. However, with that said, since I'm no enlightened master, I must admit that I continue to function as if the seat of my thought processes are purely brain-related.
Yet it is also important to note that we currently tend to believe we all have an "ego" and a "subconscious" yet these two concepts remain only abstract concepts since as of yet science can only speculate as to the location of these aspects of "self" within "brain." But science does believe they exist almost definitively.
Thus, if I am a brain, how come we can't locate my ego or my subconscious? Where are they located within the organ that is supposed to define ME? Where is the thought that supposedly emanates or originates from these "sources"?
This may sound silly but keep in mind that pretty much the entire science of psychology is based on these two massive assumptions, that we have an ego and a subconscious, that cannot with any degree of scientific validity be proven. This is troubling since I have never seen or touched either an "ego" or a "subconscious" and I have read of no research that has done so. But I have read much that assumes they both exist conclusively.
So what does this all mean!
Who knows!
Thanks
mike S
Is the Brain the Mind?
I think this is a significant question in that it can lead to many other related streams or thought.
The distinction may be important due to space-time considerations which, in the belief that we are total victims of space-time, demands localization.
Localization refers to the need to be bound by specific, concrete coordinates within the space-time model.
In other words, the little mind, which separated from big mind, needed space-time in order accentuate this "separation." Space-time can only exist in reference to localized positions, so little mind contrived into "existence" a "bodily container" through which to localize mind, as brain, in space-time coordinates, and thus maintain this illusion.
Therefore,as attached to the illusion of 'world,' it is crucial to consider "self" as a brain and to do so the brain must provide the appearance of, not only the container of thought, but as that which controls the survival of the body, and, lets face it, even though we are fully aware that we must die, "survival" is paramount. To survive, everything must be positioned or coordinated with respect to the "bodily container" of mind, there can be nothing unattached, or not contingent, on the position of something else. We all live in space-time contingencies.
To intuit an understanding of being not the body necessarily incorporates an idea of not the brain and the more one can come to believe and conform to this idea the more one throws space-time considerations out of whack resulting in all manner of abberations of consciosuness, since literally the sky's the limit (in fact, sky no longer limits).
I love fooling around with the metaphysical mechanics of this God stuff, although for the most part it's all hypothetical metababble. But its fun!
And shouldn't God be fun...Kinda like Oreo cookies.
The 'masters' seem to be pointing to the altering of our paradigm or model of brain-body. I would only argue that in eliminating the "brain" from the equation essentially demands we no longer consider science as the chief informant of the nature of reality. This may provoke debate (hopefully) since we all so deeply rely on science to define our existence.
The distinction may be important due to space-time considerations which, in the belief that we are total victims of space-time, demands localization.
Localization refers to the need to be bound by specific, concrete coordinates within the space-time model.
In other words, the little mind, which separated from big mind, needed space-time in order accentuate this "separation." Space-time can only exist in reference to localized positions, so little mind contrived into "existence" a "bodily container" through which to localize mind, as brain, in space-time coordinates, and thus maintain this illusion.
Therefore,as attached to the illusion of 'world,' it is crucial to consider "self" as a brain and to do so the brain must provide the appearance of, not only the container of thought, but as that which controls the survival of the body, and, lets face it, even though we are fully aware that we must die, "survival" is paramount. To survive, everything must be positioned or coordinated with respect to the "bodily container" of mind, there can be nothing unattached, or not contingent, on the position of something else. We all live in space-time contingencies.
To intuit an understanding of being not the body necessarily incorporates an idea of not the brain and the more one can come to believe and conform to this idea the more one throws space-time considerations out of whack resulting in all manner of abberations of consciosuness, since literally the sky's the limit (in fact, sky no longer limits).
I love fooling around with the metaphysical mechanics of this God stuff, although for the most part it's all hypothetical metababble. But its fun!
And shouldn't God be fun...Kinda like Oreo cookies.
The 'masters' seem to be pointing to the altering of our paradigm or model of brain-body. I would only argue that in eliminating the "brain" from the equation essentially demands we no longer consider science as the chief informant of the nature of reality. This may provoke debate (hopefully) since we all so deeply rely on science to define our existence.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Do We Surrender or Accept?
Something about the term "surrender" has always been unsettling for me and I'm not completely certain as to why?
I think I tend to adhere to an idea of enlightenment being more defined by "acceptance" as opposed to "surrender."
Surrender tends to connote a giving up (my opinion) wheras acceptance is an encompassing or an enfolding/embracing ALL OF IT.
If I surrender TO a "path" have I then placed a negative judgment on the road I was on before I surrendered? And could my surrender to a "path" mean I that I have in some way rejected all that occurred before I "surrendered" to a particular path? Could such a rejection of my previous direction impede this choice of a NEW path, since we do have a strong tendencey to define our "self" by the past?
I realize that I may simply be identifying semantical considerations that really are insignificant to the big picture. Yet, we do tend to define ourselves through words and images and I think until we become "enlightened" to the fact that words and images are unimportant, it might be necessary to examine closely every word or image that takes a thematic presence in our mind (in other words, it's not the thoughts that are important, but the themes or patterns to our thinking that must be examined).
Therefore, such a theme as "surrender" could hold grave importance if in that surrender to a path, I find myself discouraged by my inability to allow that surrender to be TOTAL. However, if I am "accepting" a path, then my acceptance simply incorporates into my current direction this new route as simply a part of the whole "path" I have always been on.
I do not need to surrender just incorporate this alternative "path" as enfolded within my current "path." I feel this leaves us open to greater movement within our own particular path (and all the paths we incoproate from time to time) and thus we need not expect adoption of any ideas IN TOTAL. I feel surrender tends to demands TOTALITY and could this merely sets us up for failure (or a feeling of failure)?
Perhaps in the end, instead of "surrendering" to myself, I am actually "accepting" myself - ALL OF IT (all paths leading to One or Oneness)
Just some ideas to toss about...
I think I tend to adhere to an idea of enlightenment being more defined by "acceptance" as opposed to "surrender."
Surrender tends to connote a giving up (my opinion) wheras acceptance is an encompassing or an enfolding/embracing ALL OF IT.
If I surrender TO a "path" have I then placed a negative judgment on the road I was on before I surrendered? And could my surrender to a "path" mean I that I have in some way rejected all that occurred before I "surrendered" to a particular path? Could such a rejection of my previous direction impede this choice of a NEW path, since we do have a strong tendencey to define our "self" by the past?
I realize that I may simply be identifying semantical considerations that really are insignificant to the big picture. Yet, we do tend to define ourselves through words and images and I think until we become "enlightened" to the fact that words and images are unimportant, it might be necessary to examine closely every word or image that takes a thematic presence in our mind (in other words, it's not the thoughts that are important, but the themes or patterns to our thinking that must be examined).
Therefore, such a theme as "surrender" could hold grave importance if in that surrender to a path, I find myself discouraged by my inability to allow that surrender to be TOTAL. However, if I am "accepting" a path, then my acceptance simply incorporates into my current direction this new route as simply a part of the whole "path" I have always been on.
I do not need to surrender just incorporate this alternative "path" as enfolded within my current "path." I feel this leaves us open to greater movement within our own particular path (and all the paths we incoproate from time to time) and thus we need not expect adoption of any ideas IN TOTAL. I feel surrender tends to demands TOTALITY and could this merely sets us up for failure (or a feeling of failure)?
Perhaps in the end, instead of "surrendering" to myself, I am actually "accepting" myself - ALL OF IT (all paths leading to One or Oneness)
Just some ideas to toss about...
Collective Fears
I tend to believe the concept of "individual enlightenment" to be flawed. To me the idea that "individuals" or parts of the whole can FULLY realize or awaken to the whole, just doesn't, at present, sit well with me. We either all "go" together or we all stay put...
(this seems to have been the message of the Christ)
Nevertheless, if we closely examine the numerous concepts or paths of individual enlightenment, there always appears to be a process of uncovering and exposing "shadow zones," which are parts of the self that only serve to maintain further adherence to the self as "body" (dualism) and thus avoid deeper truth or obstruct "enlightenment."
Thus, to reveal such obstructions one must, I believe, recognize the various "defense mechanisms" employed to keep the obstructions undisclosed or unconscious.
I think the important point is that, not only are the obstructions to "enlightenment" unconscious, but the mechanisms employed to veil or hide the obstructions from consciousness are also unconscious. In a sense what we have are two levels of fear. The first is our particular fears (maybe in an objective sense?) and the second is "fear itself" (subjective?).
Therefore, we repress, dissociate, and intellectualize, etc, our need to SEE our fear. However, we need NOT continue to scratch the surface in an attempt to realize our deeper fears, but possibly, we need to first understand the mechanisms used to avoid SEEING our fears.
The Freudian concepts of "defense mechanisms" was conceptualized to understand how individuals seem to "block" parts of "external" reality that the ego defines as fearful or guilt inducing. I then theorized how one might employ the same mechanisms to "block" deeper spiritual or absolute truth. I then stated that these same individual mechanisms could possibly be employed by entire "collectives" to avoid deeper collective truth and thus impede the collective spiritual evolution. Thus, if we identify how the collective unconscious of whole populations defend against actually confronting fear, might we possibly have greater access to fully SEEING collective fears? Essentially, we first need to get over the fear of facing our fears.
My hypothesis is that such might change collective psychological landscapes on a "global scale" (which could be seen externally), thereby resulting in a deeper acceptance of SEEING what we ALL fear as a collective, rather then dissociating, repressing, intellectualizing, etc, and thus maintaining avoidance, which we all seem to now do within our respective "nationalized" collective.
I suppose, in retrospect, I was examining change from a political perspective, particularly in relation to war and ethnic/religious violence (major obstructions to an "enlightened" state). As a national collective identity, I can dissociate from my fears by projecting onto my neighbor (war) or I can intellectualize my fears by creating a religion or I can repress my fear by oppressing my citizenry. The fact is that, for the collective to allow for these political expedients to occur the collective must believe the fears to be real and based on what the national identity does to defend against truly examining fear, this will determine the reality of the fears for the populace and thus, thier participation in their own oppression through religion, war, government, etc.
Yet, if collectives become aware of what we are doing to defend against SEEING our fears, maybe we can better define them (as non-existent, of course) leading to improved external conditions conducive to higher states of consciousness, or "enlightenemnt," within entire populations.
Whew!
But, I'm just saying...
(this seems to have been the message of the Christ)
Nevertheless, if we closely examine the numerous concepts or paths of individual enlightenment, there always appears to be a process of uncovering and exposing "shadow zones," which are parts of the self that only serve to maintain further adherence to the self as "body" (dualism) and thus avoid deeper truth or obstruct "enlightenment."
Thus, to reveal such obstructions one must, I believe, recognize the various "defense mechanisms" employed to keep the obstructions undisclosed or unconscious.
I think the important point is that, not only are the obstructions to "enlightenment" unconscious, but the mechanisms employed to veil or hide the obstructions from consciousness are also unconscious. In a sense what we have are two levels of fear. The first is our particular fears (maybe in an objective sense?) and the second is "fear itself" (subjective?).
Therefore, we repress, dissociate, and intellectualize, etc, our need to SEE our fear. However, we need NOT continue to scratch the surface in an attempt to realize our deeper fears, but possibly, we need to first understand the mechanisms used to avoid SEEING our fears.
The Freudian concepts of "defense mechanisms" was conceptualized to understand how individuals seem to "block" parts of "external" reality that the ego defines as fearful or guilt inducing. I then theorized how one might employ the same mechanisms to "block" deeper spiritual or absolute truth. I then stated that these same individual mechanisms could possibly be employed by entire "collectives" to avoid deeper collective truth and thus impede the collective spiritual evolution. Thus, if we identify how the collective unconscious of whole populations defend against actually confronting fear, might we possibly have greater access to fully SEEING collective fears? Essentially, we first need to get over the fear of facing our fears.
My hypothesis is that such might change collective psychological landscapes on a "global scale" (which could be seen externally), thereby resulting in a deeper acceptance of SEEING what we ALL fear as a collective, rather then dissociating, repressing, intellectualizing, etc, and thus maintaining avoidance, which we all seem to now do within our respective "nationalized" collective.
I suppose, in retrospect, I was examining change from a political perspective, particularly in relation to war and ethnic/religious violence (major obstructions to an "enlightened" state). As a national collective identity, I can dissociate from my fears by projecting onto my neighbor (war) or I can intellectualize my fears by creating a religion or I can repress my fear by oppressing my citizenry. The fact is that, for the collective to allow for these political expedients to occur the collective must believe the fears to be real and based on what the national identity does to defend against truly examining fear, this will determine the reality of the fears for the populace and thus, thier participation in their own oppression through religion, war, government, etc.
Yet, if collectives become aware of what we are doing to defend against SEEING our fears, maybe we can better define them (as non-existent, of course) leading to improved external conditions conducive to higher states of consciousness, or "enlightenemnt," within entire populations.
Whew!
But, I'm just saying...
Monday, March 24, 2008
Levels and Stages
If God/Source/love is all-encompassing Oneness or union, then I believe we need to recognize our demand that this conform to "degrees."
In our desire for this truth, why is it that we require degrees, gradations, levels, quadrants, lines, stages, phases, states, tiers, etc, etc, in knowing this Oneness of God/Source.
Doesn't our requirement of the gradual "learning" of God/Source (of what many say, we already know) merely work to assert and confirm the dis-unity and separateness of dualism.
Through our "belief" that we do not know God (or not yet "fully"), we then further press into our reality the "belief" that God/Source must be "learned," which seems to negate the "knowing."
"Learning" is a concept based on the expectation of "knowing" at a future time. We can live out our lives forever in the "expectation" that God "will" be known to us, but only IF we continue in our learning. Does our demand for the learning OF God/Source simply work to push God/Source further away?
And this "learning" requires we plod onward through very specific levels or stages of learning (often defined by someone else?). This seems likely to go on and on, ad infinitum, path after path, level after level, time after time. When does it end?
When can I give up my reliance on levels and stages of learning and finally admit to the fact that I KNOW and "learning" is no longer necessary? When Can I allow myself to partake of the peace, joy and love of that knowing God/Source?
Next year? Next month? When I'm 65? After all the bills are paid? Tomorrow? As soon as I find that "special someone"?
Now?
Hey, I'm just saying...
In our desire for this truth, why is it that we require degrees, gradations, levels, quadrants, lines, stages, phases, states, tiers, etc, etc, in knowing this Oneness of God/Source.
Doesn't our requirement of the gradual "learning" of God/Source (of what many say, we already know) merely work to assert and confirm the dis-unity and separateness of dualism.
Through our "belief" that we do not know God (or not yet "fully"), we then further press into our reality the "belief" that God/Source must be "learned," which seems to negate the "knowing."
"Learning" is a concept based on the expectation of "knowing" at a future time. We can live out our lives forever in the "expectation" that God "will" be known to us, but only IF we continue in our learning. Does our demand for the learning OF God/Source simply work to push God/Source further away?
And this "learning" requires we plod onward through very specific levels or stages of learning (often defined by someone else?). This seems likely to go on and on, ad infinitum, path after path, level after level, time after time. When does it end?
When can I give up my reliance on levels and stages of learning and finally admit to the fact that I KNOW and "learning" is no longer necessary? When Can I allow myself to partake of the peace, joy and love of that knowing God/Source?
Next year? Next month? When I'm 65? After all the bills are paid? Tomorrow? As soon as I find that "special someone"?
Now?
Hey, I'm just saying...
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Is Evil the Absence of Love?
I do believe in the end we will need to do away with "evil" as a conceptualization and I sense "absence" is more adequate to the discourse since "evil" is firmly rooted in religious interpretations which have a tendency to take on extreme connotations, i.e. "evildoers," (a word that really makes me cringe).
Of course, this has been verbalized as an absence of "love" in other traditions. Yet, in that sense, "absence" may be too strong a word unless we consider "degrees" of absence. I would suggest that there can never be absolute absence only relative absence. I state this only because my hypothesis is that "Love is Being" and this is because I feel that conceptualizations of God and love as synonymous seem correct and very universal to the world's thinking.
We are all seeking union as One and, although our attempts with others frequently fail due to the conditions we impose on that unification, we will not surrender the desire to unify as it is completely wrapped up in our very BEING. I think that on an unconscious level this drives us on ever seeking in our desire for Union with God, which can only occur as Union with all that is - READ: everyone.
Therefore, when we allow ourselves to be "pervaded" by love we are gaining greater experience of Being or are becoming more grounded in Being (as opposed to "being as...") which is God's extension Of God's Being through us. Thus, in varying "degrees" of love we are experiencing varying degrees of correspondence with our infinite perfection which can only be experienced through experiencing our BEING (UNconditional).
To NOT experience any love is to NOT experience Being as extension of God. This is impossible since one could not Be or not exist. Therefore, in experiencing greater or lesser degress of love we are experiencing greater or lesser degrees of God' s Being through us.
Yet, there is a problem in this since we experience varying levels of love through our varying conceptual interpretations as to what "love" is. Thus, each interpretation of love that includes more and more of what we perceive of as "world," becomes increasingly more unrelated to our conditional concepts and therefore takes us closer and closer, by degrees, to the UNconditional love of Being or God's extension of God through us.
Essentially, we currently "exist" as experiencing this "absence" of love/God and conduct our lives unconsciously seeking to fill the absence through ever greater experiences of love and, although we fail to perceive it in such terms, since it is fear-based, the more UNconditional our concepts of love the more "in the likeness" of God we become.
Return to the infinite Oneness of God is to go completely beyond conceptual, conditional love into UNconceptual, UNconditional love. In my opinion, this is what the "masters" teach.
OK, I'm done!
Of course, this has been verbalized as an absence of "love" in other traditions. Yet, in that sense, "absence" may be too strong a word unless we consider "degrees" of absence. I would suggest that there can never be absolute absence only relative absence. I state this only because my hypothesis is that "Love is Being" and this is because I feel that conceptualizations of God and love as synonymous seem correct and very universal to the world's thinking.
We are all seeking union as One and, although our attempts with others frequently fail due to the conditions we impose on that unification, we will not surrender the desire to unify as it is completely wrapped up in our very BEING. I think that on an unconscious level this drives us on ever seeking in our desire for Union with God, which can only occur as Union with all that is - READ: everyone.
Therefore, when we allow ourselves to be "pervaded" by love we are gaining greater experience of Being or are becoming more grounded in Being (as opposed to "being as...") which is God's extension Of God's Being through us. Thus, in varying "degrees" of love we are experiencing varying degrees of correspondence with our infinite perfection which can only be experienced through experiencing our BEING (UNconditional).
To NOT experience any love is to NOT experience Being as extension of God. This is impossible since one could not Be or not exist. Therefore, in experiencing greater or lesser degress of love we are experiencing greater or lesser degrees of God' s Being through us.
Yet, there is a problem in this since we experience varying levels of love through our varying conceptual interpretations as to what "love" is. Thus, each interpretation of love that includes more and more of what we perceive of as "world," becomes increasingly more unrelated to our conditional concepts and therefore takes us closer and closer, by degrees, to the UNconditional love of Being or God's extension of God through us.
Essentially, we currently "exist" as experiencing this "absence" of love/God and conduct our lives unconsciously seeking to fill the absence through ever greater experiences of love and, although we fail to perceive it in such terms, since it is fear-based, the more UNconditional our concepts of love the more "in the likeness" of God we become.
Return to the infinite Oneness of God is to go completely beyond conceptual, conditional love into UNconceptual, UNconditional love. In my opinion, this is what the "masters" teach.
OK, I'm done!
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Imperfect Forms, Perfect BEING
God provided extension of God as BEING and in that Being is the perfection OF God which is complete peace, love and joy. Being (or existence) itself has no forms or manifestations of form within it. It is complete, permanent, absolute and totally perfect in all respects. Essentially, this is ultimatley what we seek in all our "pursuits of happiness."
From this Being/existence we manifest imperfection, incompletion and relativity and all our forms conform to these specifications. Therefore, God has no involvement with forms as we manifest.
However, God/Source is the "ground of being" and therefore has allowed our existence and, thus, our ability to manifest. What we exist AS, has always been our doing.
Yet only in a return to Being will we return to perfect peace, love and joy. For now we manifest all manner of imitative peace, love and joy, imperfect through manifest form, simply because form is limited to space-time parameters. God/Source is not and thus is infinite.
Thus, we can say that God is UNinvolved in our manifest universe, but is fully involved in our "existing" since without our existing (to Be or not to Be) we could not manifest what we "believe" as "reality." Therefore, we continue to seek return to the perfect peace, love and joy that in this world can only be experienced as incomplete, partial, changing and imperfect in every way. In our seeking perfection (completion) we essentially seek God.
Thus ends my "Theory of Everything." (Wilber eat your heart out!).
Of course, it's all "words" and therefore, has no truth to it whatsoever.
From this Being/existence we manifest imperfection, incompletion and relativity and all our forms conform to these specifications. Therefore, God has no involvement with forms as we manifest.
However, God/Source is the "ground of being" and therefore has allowed our existence and, thus, our ability to manifest. What we exist AS, has always been our doing.
Yet only in a return to Being will we return to perfect peace, love and joy. For now we manifest all manner of imitative peace, love and joy, imperfect through manifest form, simply because form is limited to space-time parameters. God/Source is not and thus is infinite.
Thus, we can say that God is UNinvolved in our manifest universe, but is fully involved in our "existing" since without our existing (to Be or not to Be) we could not manifest what we "believe" as "reality." Therefore, we continue to seek return to the perfect peace, love and joy that in this world can only be experienced as incomplete, partial, changing and imperfect in every way. In our seeking perfection (completion) we essentially seek God.
Thus ends my "Theory of Everything." (Wilber eat your heart out!).
Of course, it's all "words" and therefore, has no truth to it whatsoever.
The Solution to Fear
I believe the solution is in recognizing evil as simply a manifestation of fear, but a profound manifestation and not like the symptoms of fear we manifest on a daily basis, such as anger depression, guilt, anxiety, all simply manifestations or symptoms of our individual fear firmly pressed into the world consciousness.
When each individual expunges the mind of all aspects of fear, this would then magnify within the collective mind that we all are a part of and obviously when you eradicate all fear, how could you not then love, since it is fear that bars the gate to love.
Instead, it seems easier to look outward and blame the world for atrocities that we all contribute to in our own little conscious world. Encased within our craniums we believe our thoughts are private and have no effect on the collective mind.
Sadly, I believe that each time anger enters one solitary mind it maintains the collective belief in war as a solution. So the next time you curse the driver who cut you off or yell at your child in anger, recognize that you just might be supporting war as a solution.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
God as Perfection
For me conceptualizing God as Perfection was the only way I could encompass the horrors of reality. This seems "accurate" in relation to our conceptualization of God's involvement with unconditional love and the fact that absolute perfection would be the same complete lack of conditions or limits.
Thus, for me, absolute perfection (redundant) would be defined as absolutely no conditions or limits. Manifestations of "evil" conform to limits and conditions. However, manifestations of good conform to limits as well. Thus, ALL manifest reality is conditioned and limited and therefore not of God, but of man who manifests a conditional reality based on his closeness to or distance from God. God gave man BEING (consciousness?) and man filled that up with all manner of the manifest.
This dualism can also be defined as closeness to, or distance from love, since God and unconditional love have been defined as synonymous. The dualism of Good/evil can therefore, be easily redefined as closeness to love or distance from love. Actually the evil/good dichotomy can be used as a measurement. Thus, we could state that a "Hitler" ( mindset as opposed to deeds since the deeds were of a nation-state) is the most distance yet manifest to God/love and "Mother Teresa" exemplifies the most closeness, as of yet, manifest (Obviously, a very simplistic model).
As you can see I do tend to apply logic to God and although I recognize that God cannot be apprehended through logic I believe we can get pretty darned close (and then it becomes fuzzy logic).
At present, due to the limits and conditions natural to a manifest universe I continue to adhere to a belief that all manifest reality cannot be a product of perfection, whether good or evil, but is a product of our collective/individual "field" of consciousness. Therefore, it is not a product of God, but merely mimics perfection, at variable degrees, in seemingly infinite ways.
But I listen and learn from others and that belief could change at any moment
Thus, for me, absolute perfection (redundant) would be defined as absolutely no conditions or limits. Manifestations of "evil" conform to limits and conditions. However, manifestations of good conform to limits as well. Thus, ALL manifest reality is conditioned and limited and therefore not of God, but of man who manifests a conditional reality based on his closeness to or distance from God. God gave man BEING (consciousness?) and man filled that up with all manner of the manifest.
This dualism can also be defined as closeness to, or distance from love, since God and unconditional love have been defined as synonymous. The dualism of Good/evil can therefore, be easily redefined as closeness to love or distance from love. Actually the evil/good dichotomy can be used as a measurement. Thus, we could state that a "Hitler" ( mindset as opposed to deeds since the deeds were of a nation-state) is the most distance yet manifest to God/love and "Mother Teresa" exemplifies the most closeness, as of yet, manifest (Obviously, a very simplistic model).
As you can see I do tend to apply logic to God and although I recognize that God cannot be apprehended through logic I believe we can get pretty darned close (and then it becomes fuzzy logic).
At present, due to the limits and conditions natural to a manifest universe I continue to adhere to a belief that all manifest reality cannot be a product of perfection, whether good or evil, but is a product of our collective/individual "field" of consciousness. Therefore, it is not a product of God, but merely mimics perfection, at variable degrees, in seemingly infinite ways.
But I listen and learn from others and that belief could change at any moment
What Does God Require
Why does God require or demand anything?" I believe this has been the point to the current line of questioning. What is the work of God and what is the work of man? Since, clearly, man is imperfection, while we tend to believe God is perfection.
Therefore, in conceptualizing reasons for suffering, do we inadvertently reduce God to imperfection without recognizing the contradiction and potential hypocrisy in our theories.
To state that there are no laws to God and God requires nothing, thus if there are no laws to God, and if "God is in everything" (as many point out) then god is nihilistic and acts helter skelter upon us with no rhyme or reason. Is this not what we perceive in the world?
Thus, "Being" can be defined as random chaos that just IS and we should simply love what IS, no matter the horrors that "what is" manifests and infanticide and tsunamis are just manifestations of the wonderful mystery of God as "what is.' We should accept the death and destruction as God manifesting "what is." There should be no anger, just acceptance.
My mind actively rebels (as is evident) against such reductionism, "reductio ad absurdum," as inimical to the truth of God's perfection (unless of course one holds that God is imperfect and thus manifests as such).
Man's consciousness is nihilism and chaos and therefore, could we say that reality, as manifest, is simply representative of man's consciousness and thus has nothing whatsoever to do with God (this is not my theory and is in fact advocated by many advaitist traditions). God can remain perfect and, as you state, is inherently connected to the Beingness of man, yet man fails to correspond with his "Beingness" and thus manifests upon the tabula rasa of consciousness all maner of hell in the "forms" of tsunamis, infanticiide, ect, etc.
God allows man to BE and, in that is "heaven." However, in separation from BEING, man loses heaven and naturally manifests hell. Yet, man can never fully lose correspondence with God or else man would not BE, therefore, man manifests dualistic heaven and hell. Of course, because man cannot fully lose correspondence with God we have all kinds of religious belief systems that are constructed to bring man back to BEING, yet they too fall victim to chaos and hypocrisy in an attempt to explain the manifestations of man's chaotic consciousness as having something to do with God's perfection.
Therfore, (to sum up simplistically) in changing consciousness and returning our "gaze" back to Being, we can then alter the manifestational reality to better conform to heaven in the act of negating hell. I believe this is the perspective of Zen (kinda).
Therefore, in conceptualizing reasons for suffering, do we inadvertently reduce God to imperfection without recognizing the contradiction and potential hypocrisy in our theories.
To state that there are no laws to God and God requires nothing, thus if there are no laws to God, and if "God is in everything" (as many point out) then god is nihilistic and acts helter skelter upon us with no rhyme or reason. Is this not what we perceive in the world?
Thus, "Being" can be defined as random chaos that just IS and we should simply love what IS, no matter the horrors that "what is" manifests and infanticide and tsunamis are just manifestations of the wonderful mystery of God as "what is.' We should accept the death and destruction as God manifesting "what is." There should be no anger, just acceptance.
My mind actively rebels (as is evident) against such reductionism, "reductio ad absurdum," as inimical to the truth of God's perfection (unless of course one holds that God is imperfect and thus manifests as such).
Man's consciousness is nihilism and chaos and therefore, could we say that reality, as manifest, is simply representative of man's consciousness and thus has nothing whatsoever to do with God (this is not my theory and is in fact advocated by many advaitist traditions). God can remain perfect and, as you state, is inherently connected to the Beingness of man, yet man fails to correspond with his "Beingness" and thus manifests upon the tabula rasa of consciousness all maner of hell in the "forms" of tsunamis, infanticiide, ect, etc.
God allows man to BE and, in that is "heaven." However, in separation from BEING, man loses heaven and naturally manifests hell. Yet, man can never fully lose correspondence with God or else man would not BE, therefore, man manifests dualistic heaven and hell. Of course, because man cannot fully lose correspondence with God we have all kinds of religious belief systems that are constructed to bring man back to BEING, yet they too fall victim to chaos and hypocrisy in an attempt to explain the manifestations of man's chaotic consciousness as having something to do with God's perfection.
Therfore, (to sum up simplistically) in changing consciousness and returning our "gaze" back to Being, we can then alter the manifestational reality to better conform to heaven in the act of negating hell. I believe this is the perspective of Zen (kinda).
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Concepts of Evil
Would it be better to conceptualize "evil" as that "thought" (and any corresponding actions) which takes us farther from a conceptualization of perfection (God), which, of course, can never be attained?
However, we all do tend to "sense" what is not perfect (similar to Plato's Theory of Forms) and we all do tend to seek out perfection and move away from imperfection. Evil might be that in which consciousness (as defined as what consciousness is attentive TO or makes manifest through that attention) has moved the farthest from perfection and closer to imperfection? Thus, evil is the manifestation of the greatest distance consciousness can be from perfection?
If this was true then we could state that the "Holocaust" was a manifestation of the furthest counsciousness could be FROM Perfection. While, manifestations such as "Mother Teresa" would be indicative of the closest one could get TO perfection. All manifestation essentially belongs, or is extended fom, our consciousness (collective/individual) yet might it serve this purpose of simply measuring our distance to God (perfection)?
We have simply applied the religious term of "evil" to that which is farthest from perfection (which religions have been known to perpetrate as being very far FROM perfection).
However, we all do tend to "sense" what is not perfect (similar to Plato's Theory of Forms) and we all do tend to seek out perfection and move away from imperfection. Evil might be that in which consciousness (as defined as what consciousness is attentive TO or makes manifest through that attention) has moved the farthest from perfection and closer to imperfection? Thus, evil is the manifestation of the greatest distance consciousness can be from perfection?
If this was true then we could state that the "Holocaust" was a manifestation of the furthest counsciousness could be FROM Perfection. While, manifestations such as "Mother Teresa" would be indicative of the closest one could get TO perfection. All manifestation essentially belongs, or is extended fom, our consciousness (collective/individual) yet might it serve this purpose of simply measuring our distance to God (perfection)?
We have simply applied the religious term of "evil" to that which is farthest from perfection (which religions have been known to perpetrate as being very far FROM perfection).
Manifest vs. UNmanifest
At present, I tend to identify both good and evil, as we perceive it in 'reality,' as separate from God.
The Advaita Vedanta perspective leans toward a conception that God is UNmanifest and all that is manifest is our 'projection' onto the UNmanifest. Therefore, all our concepts and precepts, and everything we believe as 'real' is completely our doing (or thinking) and has nothing to do with God or Source or whatever label we tend to employ.
However, to allow for even more confusion (sorry), God is the UNmanifest in that God is our
"Being" or the "ground" from which manifestations arise and are believed in. So, in that respect, God IS "first cause" in the chain of contingencies in which everything seems contingent on everything else (cause and effect).
Therefore, God is the 'ground' from which all IS manifest, yet still, God does not manufacture the manifestations, WE do. God is this 'perfection' that, when we detach or dis-identify from the manifest in seeking God, we can realize God/Source. Or so they say...
Therefore, I do agree with others in that to detach from identification with the manifest (reality), in our desire to retun to UNmanifest (God/Source), we do need to perceive the manifest differently or transformatively. Thus, any interpretation of that perceiving which is in some way interrelated to 'love' may be the way to transform the manifest so that we no longer identify with it as evil which, I do agree, only serves to press us further into our belief in it. But either way, what is manifest is ours and not OF God/Source. (I suddenly realize I'm "splitting hairs" but I'll let someone else point that out).
So, as you can see, I do agree with much of what you point to in terms of an alternative perception of reality. My only point (purely based on my tentative belief) is that manifest reality IS NOT GOD and all the terrors and glories of our 'reality' are our conscious manifestations onto a 'field' (if you will) of this UNknowable UNmanifest. We unfold into Manifestation (imperfection) wereas UNmanifestation (perfection) is of God or Source, that we have lost connection to.
Son of God?
I tend to find Jesus as "son of God" to make no sense whatsoever.
It's as if God apportioned off his creation to specific entities/beings as opposed to the very allowance of Being itself. As if God proclaimed "here is my "son" as extension of me and the love that is my composition for which YOU are not so gifted, but I give you the 'one' who is so gifted, worship "him."
Once again, my belief is that this negates the perfection of God as ONE.
The interpretation of "son of God" seems to point to a "specialness" that could only be actualized through parts and never the whole. We see ego-based multiplicity in all our interpretations of God.
I tend to believe that the symbolism of the "cross" and the obsession with "sacrifice" obstructs from the symbolic representation of resurrection. Not "the" resurrection, which is singular and eludes to God's one "son," but resurrection as multiplicity in that ALL share in that "eternal life" and the overcoming of "death" (death in relation to the duality of life-death).
Jesus as man showed the way to what Jesus as Christ Mind became as ONE with God. Possibly resurrection proved that death is not applicable to God or to what God creates. God did not require sacrifice and Jesus proved this by demonstrating that sacrifice is unnecessary.
In willingly showing the transcendence of death, the message was that we, too, can transcend what was NEVER created in the first place. God does not die as that would negate perfection, so why would what God creates contain in its BEING, that aspect?
But what if "Jesus" never existed at all, but the universal ideas merely evolved from "within" archetypally? Yet, we demand that these ideas be embodied as form. The collective ego demands the "personification" of what is "within" us, since, in our attachment to "ego as self, " we must minimize our potential as son of God or as the extension of the perfection of God. Not to minimize our potential would mean we are NOT ego and this "death" is what we fear.
It cannot be me or you, it must have been some other "body" that knew the truth. Too bad WE are not that "person," but what if all along we have been and we ARE Christ Mind? Christ Mind is real, but "Jesus" was our invention.
It's as if God apportioned off his creation to specific entities/beings as opposed to the very allowance of Being itself. As if God proclaimed "here is my "son" as extension of me and the love that is my composition for which YOU are not so gifted, but I give you the 'one' who is so gifted, worship "him."
Once again, my belief is that this negates the perfection of God as ONE.
The interpretation of "son of God" seems to point to a "specialness" that could only be actualized through parts and never the whole. We see ego-based multiplicity in all our interpretations of God.
I tend to believe that the symbolism of the "cross" and the obsession with "sacrifice" obstructs from the symbolic representation of resurrection. Not "the" resurrection, which is singular and eludes to God's one "son," but resurrection as multiplicity in that ALL share in that "eternal life" and the overcoming of "death" (death in relation to the duality of life-death).
Jesus as man showed the way to what Jesus as Christ Mind became as ONE with God. Possibly resurrection proved that death is not applicable to God or to what God creates. God did not require sacrifice and Jesus proved this by demonstrating that sacrifice is unnecessary.
In willingly showing the transcendence of death, the message was that we, too, can transcend what was NEVER created in the first place. God does not die as that would negate perfection, so why would what God creates contain in its BEING, that aspect?
But what if "Jesus" never existed at all, but the universal ideas merely evolved from "within" archetypally? Yet, we demand that these ideas be embodied as form. The collective ego demands the "personification" of what is "within" us, since, in our attachment to "ego as self, " we must minimize our potential as son of God or as the extension of the perfection of God. Not to minimize our potential would mean we are NOT ego and this "death" is what we fear.
It cannot be me or you, it must have been some other "body" that knew the truth. Too bad WE are not that "person," but what if all along we have been and we ARE Christ Mind? Christ Mind is real, but "Jesus" was our invention.
Natural Calamities
I do not place God outside myself and, in fact, I am inclined to believe God has no engagement or partcipation with external reality or the reality as perceived through sensory perception. (you might call it a tentative belief).
In addition, the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami took the lives of over 200, 000 people. This seems to me to be within the defining characteristics of an "atrocity" and is clearly not man made. Thus, could we say God took the lives of 200,00 people? If we atribute this purely to nature then could we state that God allowed nature's destruction? Do we define this death, destruction and suffering as the "unfolding of life itself" and therefore indicative that "God is"? Do we then define God as death, destruction and suffering? I believe we can easily and effortlessly attribute "beauty" and "goodness" to God, yet how do we define these opposing forces? Thus if we cannot attribute both to God, what can both be attributed to, since if God is everything, this must be accounted for?
However, if they have "no place in God" do they not exist, since all that exists is "within" God and therefore, all that exists outside of God is not of God? Many believe that it is "only our judgment that atrocities are committed." Does that mean if we do not judge the Indian Ocean Tsunami as an atrocity, then it can not be an atrocity?
I don't have the answers, only seemingly infinite questions...
In addition, the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami took the lives of over 200, 000 people. This seems to me to be within the defining characteristics of an "atrocity" and is clearly not man made. Thus, could we say God took the lives of 200,00 people? If we atribute this purely to nature then could we state that God allowed nature's destruction? Do we define this death, destruction and suffering as the "unfolding of life itself" and therefore indicative that "God is"? Do we then define God as death, destruction and suffering? I believe we can easily and effortlessly attribute "beauty" and "goodness" to God, yet how do we define these opposing forces? Thus if we cannot attribute both to God, what can both be attributed to, since if God is everything, this must be accounted for?
However, if they have "no place in God" do they not exist, since all that exists is "within" God and therefore, all that exists outside of God is not of God? Many believe that it is "only our judgment that atrocities are committed." Does that mean if we do not judge the Indian Ocean Tsunami as an atrocity, then it can not be an atrocity?
I don't have the answers, only seemingly infinite questions...
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Is God Anything or Nothing?
"If God is NOT anything, Then God must be nothing and if God is nothing then there can be no attributes
Seems, on the whole, to be a good syllogism. However, "anything" denotes object (thing) and "attributes" points to inherent qualities (as found in objects/things).
Therefore, I would agree that "God isn't anything" since clearly God cannot be objectified and since all of the inherent qualities we can conceptualize are qualities of objects, then of course, God can have no inherent qualities that we know of.
However, I don't think we can say "God is nothing" simply because God does not conform to our way of objectifying what we perceive and then defining that as knowledge. Therefore, God has no "attributes" through which WE define objects, might work better. No?
The mind seems to define "nothing" as non-objective and therefore with no qualities.
Yet, maybe non-objective with no qualities really defines "perfection" since if it is not "objectified" and has no inherent qualities it is not limited in any way. Thus, God is Perfect as opposed to "nothing" which cannot be conceptualized.
We cannot conceptualize a "void" but we can conceptualize perfection, albeit, imperfectly.
So the closest we can come to conceptualizing God is "God is perfect." And in all our thoughts and actions we do strive for some conceptual representation of perfection (except those that have given up trying). We wish to be perfect and thus engage with God and essentially this is what we are all striving to do (yet we fail to see it that way. Why?).
But to perfectly engage with God demands that we be One with God, since anything other then One (or multiplicity) is imperfect. Therefore, it seems that an adequate conceptualization of God is that "God is perfect" and since we can conceptualize perfection (as opposed to nothing or void) and engage in attempting to be perfect, we are attempting to engage with God as Perfect Oneness.
I HAVE DEFINED GOD!!!
(well maybe not, but it was fun trying).
Seems, on the whole, to be a good syllogism. However, "anything" denotes object (thing) and "attributes" points to inherent qualities (as found in objects/things).
Therefore, I would agree that "God isn't anything" since clearly God cannot be objectified and since all of the inherent qualities we can conceptualize are qualities of objects, then of course, God can have no inherent qualities that we know of.
However, I don't think we can say "God is nothing" simply because God does not conform to our way of objectifying what we perceive and then defining that as knowledge. Therefore, God has no "attributes" through which WE define objects, might work better. No?
The mind seems to define "nothing" as non-objective and therefore with no qualities.
Yet, maybe non-objective with no qualities really defines "perfection" since if it is not "objectified" and has no inherent qualities it is not limited in any way. Thus, God is Perfect as opposed to "nothing" which cannot be conceptualized.
We cannot conceptualize a "void" but we can conceptualize perfection, albeit, imperfectly.
So the closest we can come to conceptualizing God is "God is perfect." And in all our thoughts and actions we do strive for some conceptual representation of perfection (except those that have given up trying). We wish to be perfect and thus engage with God and essentially this is what we are all striving to do (yet we fail to see it that way. Why?).
But to perfectly engage with God demands that we be One with God, since anything other then One (or multiplicity) is imperfect. Therefore, it seems that an adequate conceptualization of God is that "God is perfect" and since we can conceptualize perfection (as opposed to nothing or void) and engage in attempting to be perfect, we are attempting to engage with God as Perfect Oneness.
I HAVE DEFINED GOD!!!
(well maybe not, but it was fun trying).
Friday, March 7, 2008
Free Will or Being?
Our God given "free-will" is a concept I held to for many years, however, currently I find myself inclined to doubt the validity of this idea. Currently, I feel that God/Source provided us Being (or as some might term it "existence") and there was no "choice" involved in that. However, WE (collective universal consciosness "we") separated from that essential Being (as in we are no longer aware of it) and thus, in the thought of separation came "difference" and the need for "judgment" and therefore, choice.
Unfortunately, this has not been the "end of story" and we continue to play out our belief in "choice" (especially in the belief that it was God given) by continuing to divide and separate. Like the reproduction of an amoeba we continue to move further and further from Source Mind through our continued unfolding divisions.
In addition, I tend to agree partially that there are some similarities between existentialism and non-duality only in that both begin with the proposition "existence precedes essence."
However, the existentialists provide a great deal of attention to the "essence," or the skulpting of an "authentic" life, while the non-dualists provide more focus to the "existence," or the "Beingness" of living ( I AM that... vs. just I AM). The non-dualists see all "essences" of life as illusionary having no involvment in Being or existence, while the existentialists see "essence" as the focus of an authentic, genuine "existence."
I tend to believe (always subject to change) that the Christian Existentialists (Tillich, Buber, Jaspers, and of course the almighty Kierkegaard) may have the key to an interpretation of Christianity that is more amenable to modern sensibilities. I am beginning to sense that any development of an "Integral Christianity" may involve a Christian Existential conceptualization, at least as a starting point.
But, I'm just saying...
Unfortunately, this has not been the "end of story" and we continue to play out our belief in "choice" (especially in the belief that it was God given) by continuing to divide and separate. Like the reproduction of an amoeba we continue to move further and further from Source Mind through our continued unfolding divisions.
In addition, I tend to agree partially that there are some similarities between existentialism and non-duality only in that both begin with the proposition "existence precedes essence."
However, the existentialists provide a great deal of attention to the "essence," or the skulpting of an "authentic" life, while the non-dualists provide more focus to the "existence," or the "Beingness" of living ( I AM that... vs. just I AM). The non-dualists see all "essences" of life as illusionary having no involvment in Being or existence, while the existentialists see "essence" as the focus of an authentic, genuine "existence."
I tend to believe (always subject to change) that the Christian Existentialists (Tillich, Buber, Jaspers, and of course the almighty Kierkegaard) may have the key to an interpretation of Christianity that is more amenable to modern sensibilities. I am beginning to sense that any development of an "Integral Christianity" may involve a Christian Existential conceptualization, at least as a starting point.
But, I'm just saying...
Thursday, March 6, 2008
An Imperfect Moral World
I suppose I should be more specific in what I am inclined to believe at present (although all my beliefs have been subject to change at any time). But, I warn you, it may not make sense, but then, in a discouse on the unknowable, what does? So here goes...
Due to the relative nature of this reality I tend to feel that God's involvement is highly limited or not at all, only because relativity denotes imperfection which can only negate perfection AS God.
As hard as I try, I have not been able to conceptualize God as anything but conforming to complete perfection as only this makes sense. To my mind anything less cannot be considered Source/ God.
Therefore, if our systems of morality conform to relativity then, although many have aspects that mimic perfection, all must be imperfect since they were constructed to conform to the relative and not the absolute. Although many do work well, none are OF God but simply seem to conform to our numerous "concepts" of God (God as we understand God).
In order to make a perfect moral judgment one would need to be aware of not only precedents of the past, actualities of the present, but more importantly one would need to make accurate predictives in relation to KNOWING potentialities of the future. Only in this way could such a judgment be perfect.
Perfection would have these aspects available and, as such, a moral judgment could be made with absolute accuracy. We are victim to the dictates of time and thus we do not have the capacity to make moral judgments with any degree of accuracy. Thus, we attempt to mimic this perfection and I believe the world is chock full of such mimicry in more systems then just "morality."
This leads me to believe that, if we only mimic perfection in numerous "relative" ways, God is not specifically involved as that would negate the "absolute" accuracy of perfection. Therefore, moral systems are "inevitable" in relativity, but rather useless in perfection and, as such, is only necessary in relativity. Until we realize perfection, moral systems must continue to mimic perfection as that is all they can do.
Nevertheless, I do believe that God is inherent in our BEING and thus we do have access to absolute perfection (in fact, Perfection is our BEING as extension OF Source/God), yet until we attain realization of that BEING we can only haphazardly mimic perfection. Many religions refer to this realization as "enlightenment" or revelation.
I tend to feel that God does not have a "plan" per say, as this, too, would negate perfection since to have a plan would mean God's perfection has yet to be attained BY God (although this does not negate the fact that our realization of OUR perfection must be attained). On the other hand, WE have much to plan in order to control relative concerns. But, God is uninvolved with relative concerns of imperfection as that too, would negate the perfection of God.
"Survival" is only a prerequisite for salvation in a time-based world of imperfect relativity and moral systems have evolved and changed numerous time with no discernible change to world-wide suffering. I would agree that "thought" is the highest phenomenon to emerge from the universe. However, I would further assert that "thought" IS the universe, yet thought that conforms to relativity, thereby making it "real," is delusional since it is not the thought of perfection. "Perfect thought" is unconcerned with "achievements" since this denotes incompletion and perfect thought is "absolutely" complete in every way. Perfection is not concerned with evolution, just the "knowing" of perfection. However, we believe we must "evolve" to perfection and relativity demands we believe that.
Due to the relative nature of this reality I tend to feel that God's involvement is highly limited or not at all, only because relativity denotes imperfection which can only negate perfection AS God.
As hard as I try, I have not been able to conceptualize God as anything but conforming to complete perfection as only this makes sense. To my mind anything less cannot be considered Source/ God.
Therefore, if our systems of morality conform to relativity then, although many have aspects that mimic perfection, all must be imperfect since they were constructed to conform to the relative and not the absolute. Although many do work well, none are OF God but simply seem to conform to our numerous "concepts" of God (God as we understand God).
In order to make a perfect moral judgment one would need to be aware of not only precedents of the past, actualities of the present, but more importantly one would need to make accurate predictives in relation to KNOWING potentialities of the future. Only in this way could such a judgment be perfect.
Perfection would have these aspects available and, as such, a moral judgment could be made with absolute accuracy. We are victim to the dictates of time and thus we do not have the capacity to make moral judgments with any degree of accuracy. Thus, we attempt to mimic this perfection and I believe the world is chock full of such mimicry in more systems then just "morality."
This leads me to believe that, if we only mimic perfection in numerous "relative" ways, God is not specifically involved as that would negate the "absolute" accuracy of perfection. Therefore, moral systems are "inevitable" in relativity, but rather useless in perfection and, as such, is only necessary in relativity. Until we realize perfection, moral systems must continue to mimic perfection as that is all they can do.
Nevertheless, I do believe that God is inherent in our BEING and thus we do have access to absolute perfection (in fact, Perfection is our BEING as extension OF Source/God), yet until we attain realization of that BEING we can only haphazardly mimic perfection. Many religions refer to this realization as "enlightenment" or revelation.
I tend to feel that God does not have a "plan" per say, as this, too, would negate perfection since to have a plan would mean God's perfection has yet to be attained BY God (although this does not negate the fact that our realization of OUR perfection must be attained). On the other hand, WE have much to plan in order to control relative concerns. But, God is uninvolved with relative concerns of imperfection as that too, would negate the perfection of God.
"Survival" is only a prerequisite for salvation in a time-based world of imperfect relativity and moral systems have evolved and changed numerous time with no discernible change to world-wide suffering. I would agree that "thought" is the highest phenomenon to emerge from the universe. However, I would further assert that "thought" IS the universe, yet thought that conforms to relativity, thereby making it "real," is delusional since it is not the thought of perfection. "Perfect thought" is unconcerned with "achievements" since this denotes incompletion and perfect thought is "absolutely" complete in every way. Perfection is not concerned with evolution, just the "knowing" of perfection. However, we believe we must "evolve" to perfection and relativity demands we believe that.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Redefining "Enlightenment"
I wish to propose a perspective that might create a degree of anger in those wo have embarked on an intense spiritual path toward this enigmatic "enlightened state."
I would propose for consideration that we redefine enlightenment as a "state" in which all minds must participate in order for it to be labeled as "enlightened." In other words, when we as One Mind attain enlightenment, we as One Mind will no longer experience death and suffering of any kind. For me Complete Perfection requires the joining of ALL separate minds and cannot ever be experienced by parts of the ONE Complete Perfection.
Therefore, as of yet, no one has attained "enlightenment " whatsoever. Not one separate individual mind has attained a state in which "reality" has been altered so radically as to no longer manifest death and suffering of any kind whatsoever. Not Jesus, Buddha, Ramakrishna, Mohammed, or any other saint or guru has attained "enlightenment." However, they have all attained states of consciousness which provided the "vision" for which to teach a "path." They pointed a direction, yet they simply "wait" for us to choose a path and join them, since all paths have the same destination which ALL must attain for Unity with God to BE.
In the meantime, we have all manner of states and shifts of consciousness, all allowing us to see more clearly what they have pointed to. Yet the ego incorporates (as it must) all these "states" of consciousness into its belief system providing names like samdhi, kensho, nirvana, enlightenment, revelation, etc, etc, etc.
However, I do not attempt to invalidate these wonderful states of consciousness or modes of "seeing" through greater clarity. I would just propose that thay no longer be considered in any way a state of union with Source/God, but merely an opening up of greater clarity or seeing the path or way more clearly.
The reason I present this for consideration is that I tend to find it somewhat contradictory that we define these enlightened beings of the past (and present) as "enlightened" yet continue to experience and perceive intense suffering worldwide. Doesn't this result in the question, if these beings were enlightened and we are all ONE, why is it that I still suffer and witness the suffering of the world? None of these individuals whom we revere proclaimed "enlightenment" and, as most of us probably believe, those that proclaim enlightenment probably are NOT. Nevertheless, we labeled them as such.
Thus, we can revere them for their pointing the way, but maybe the "realization" is that they simply wait for us, ALL of US, to get "IT." I tend to believe that Source/God does not join with individuals, as that seems to negate God and the Infinifte Perfection of this Oneness.
Thus, there is no "enlightened states," only "ego states" which are a stripping away of, or a relinquishing of attachment, thereby allowing greater clarity, which the "ego" or "self" then affixes various names and designations in order to allow the mind to apply it to "categories of thought" and thus it is rationalized and made part of the illusionary perception of "reality."
Just some thoughts I've been toying with lately and I am completely 100% open to critical review!
I would propose for consideration that we redefine enlightenment as a "state" in which all minds must participate in order for it to be labeled as "enlightened." In other words, when we as One Mind attain enlightenment, we as One Mind will no longer experience death and suffering of any kind. For me Complete Perfection requires the joining of ALL separate minds and cannot ever be experienced by parts of the ONE Complete Perfection.
Therefore, as of yet, no one has attained "enlightenment " whatsoever. Not one separate individual mind has attained a state in which "reality" has been altered so radically as to no longer manifest death and suffering of any kind whatsoever. Not Jesus, Buddha, Ramakrishna, Mohammed, or any other saint or guru has attained "enlightenment." However, they have all attained states of consciousness which provided the "vision" for which to teach a "path." They pointed a direction, yet they simply "wait" for us to choose a path and join them, since all paths have the same destination which ALL must attain for Unity with God to BE.
In the meantime, we have all manner of states and shifts of consciousness, all allowing us to see more clearly what they have pointed to. Yet the ego incorporates (as it must) all these "states" of consciousness into its belief system providing names like samdhi, kensho, nirvana, enlightenment, revelation, etc, etc, etc.
However, I do not attempt to invalidate these wonderful states of consciousness or modes of "seeing" through greater clarity. I would just propose that thay no longer be considered in any way a state of union with Source/God, but merely an opening up of greater clarity or seeing the path or way more clearly.
The reason I present this for consideration is that I tend to find it somewhat contradictory that we define these enlightened beings of the past (and present) as "enlightened" yet continue to experience and perceive intense suffering worldwide. Doesn't this result in the question, if these beings were enlightened and we are all ONE, why is it that I still suffer and witness the suffering of the world? None of these individuals whom we revere proclaimed "enlightenment" and, as most of us probably believe, those that proclaim enlightenment probably are NOT. Nevertheless, we labeled them as such.
Thus, we can revere them for their pointing the way, but maybe the "realization" is that they simply wait for us, ALL of US, to get "IT." I tend to believe that Source/God does not join with individuals, as that seems to negate God and the Infinifte Perfection of this Oneness.
Thus, there is no "enlightened states," only "ego states" which are a stripping away of, or a relinquishing of attachment, thereby allowing greater clarity, which the "ego" or "self" then affixes various names and designations in order to allow the mind to apply it to "categories of thought" and thus it is rationalized and made part of the illusionary perception of "reality."
Just some thoughts I've been toying with lately and I am completely 100% open to critical review!
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Platitudes of Consciousness
It is interesting all the many way consciousness attempts to define itself, since I would assume that everyone can surely agree that they are "conscious." LOL! Obviously defining itself must a great feat for something that is not a "thing," but is also "everything" and "nothing."
I would ask how do we know consciousness "exists"? Is it simply because we are conscious? Is it because consciousness is filled with "things" that "IT" is conscious of? And if being an individual obstructs from closely examining consciousness, is that because I'm conscious of myself? Would I be better served by being UNconscious of myself or in having no consciousness of myself? And if we are separate individuals who is writing this post that "I" believe I'm typing right now in the hope that others may read it and respond? How can consciousness be "everything" AND "nothing" when, in UNconsciousness, there is nothing?
It is certainly a monumental task to describe something that can only be known through the objects IN IT. This seems fundamental to me since, if "I" was not IN my consciousness, or if "I" was not conscious of "I", how could "I" exist? Who or what would "I" be?
I believe that attempting to define consciousness through intellectual abstractions can only crumble into a heap of platitudes and cause complete frustration. Nevertheless, we can be certain that we are all conscious, anything else is pure speculation or personal belief, based entirely on the fact that we are conscious of our speculations and beliefs.
I would ask how do we know consciousness "exists"? Is it simply because we are conscious? Is it because consciousness is filled with "things" that "IT" is conscious of? And if being an individual obstructs from closely examining consciousness, is that because I'm conscious of myself? Would I be better served by being UNconscious of myself or in having no consciousness of myself? And if we are separate individuals who is writing this post that "I" believe I'm typing right now in the hope that others may read it and respond? How can consciousness be "everything" AND "nothing" when, in UNconsciousness, there is nothing?
It is certainly a monumental task to describe something that can only be known through the objects IN IT. This seems fundamental to me since, if "I" was not IN my consciousness, or if "I" was not conscious of "I", how could "I" exist? Who or what would "I" be?
I believe that attempting to define consciousness through intellectual abstractions can only crumble into a heap of platitudes and cause complete frustration. Nevertheless, we can be certain that we are all conscious, anything else is pure speculation or personal belief, based entirely on the fact that we are conscious of our speculations and beliefs.
Science and Subjective Experience
I tend to doubt science will ever identify with the 'subjective' since then it would NOT be 'science' and would more then likely be considered 'religion.'
Science is 'objective' by its very nature. However, there have been many who have attempted over the centuries to merge science with religon (subjective with objective), yet no one has succeeded as of yet (Ken Wilber tends to believe that the "subjective" can be studied under the same scientific method as the objective, yet, I tend to doubt it).
I agree that quantum physics has reached an end point to its theoretical considerations. However, it cannot go any further for fear of leaving the parameters of science and becoming 'religion.' I believe there is probably no greater fear a 'scientist' could experience as a member of 'science,' as it would lead to loss of membership to such a prestigious club.
I believe that, "there's only one truth" is NOT a false statement. However, in a world of 'relativity' there are only 'beliefs' as to what that "one truth" is and therefore, a multitude of truths. You have your belief and I have mine and, unfortunately, we may not attain enough concordance with our opposing beliefs for which to transcend the 'relative' and experience the 'absolute' - TOGETHER. I tend to doubt anyone will do it alone.
Therefore, we remain solidly fixed in the "relative" world, where truth is always relative to the thinker. This is the conundrum we are in and so far have not found a way out. However, I am always open to understanding those who seem to 'point' to a way.
Science is 'objective' by its very nature. However, there have been many who have attempted over the centuries to merge science with religon (subjective with objective), yet no one has succeeded as of yet (Ken Wilber tends to believe that the "subjective" can be studied under the same scientific method as the objective, yet, I tend to doubt it).
I agree that quantum physics has reached an end point to its theoretical considerations. However, it cannot go any further for fear of leaving the parameters of science and becoming 'religion.' I believe there is probably no greater fear a 'scientist' could experience as a member of 'science,' as it would lead to loss of membership to such a prestigious club.
I believe that, "there's only one truth" is NOT a false statement. However, in a world of 'relativity' there are only 'beliefs' as to what that "one truth" is and therefore, a multitude of truths. You have your belief and I have mine and, unfortunately, we may not attain enough concordance with our opposing beliefs for which to transcend the 'relative' and experience the 'absolute' - TOGETHER. I tend to doubt anyone will do it alone.
Therefore, we remain solidly fixed in the "relative" world, where truth is always relative to the thinker. This is the conundrum we are in and so far have not found a way out. However, I am always open to understanding those who seem to 'point' to a way.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Glimpses of the Inconceivable
It seems to me that many experience what has been referred to as "kensho" or glimpses into the inconceivable but lacking any permanence. However, I do sense, from what many claim, that there are changes to the "self' or even personality, that remain permanent through those glimpses, yet not the "full monty."
However, I do realize that I have no authority whatsoever to define or critique the "experiences" of others and my doing so borders on the absurd. Maybe many have merged with the infinite, yet my "ego" tells me that can't be since that role has been reserved for me! LOL!!
I do believe that we all have these glimpses, yet "egos" not versed in the "enlightenment" jargon have difficulties anchoring to a definition - "Whoa! What the f--k is happening here!" (my exact words).
I believe this was the condition of Eckhart Tolle who turned to spiritual definitions only after his "experience" and this was so that his "ego" could define what had occurred, and thus present it to other egos, which is equally absurd to me since the ego cannot possibly understand and must make it conform to categories of thought (which I believe you made note of in your previous post).
I tend to believe that we all have "glimpses" into the inconceivable. However, we can't create the conditions for this "happening" and there is no preparation required (in fact "preping" for it may obstruct it).
However, the "look see" lacks permanence (too much fear) and one returns to ego mind and the defining. This in no way detracts from the experiences, yet, my opinion is that enlightenment is permanent. The "You" is gone for good and so is the illusory world that supports a "you." There are theories that many "choose" to remain and teach, however, I tend to doubt this (yet I remain open to it).
Enlightenment to me is all or nothing and you can't straddle the fence, so to speak. We can have all kinds of awakening experiences at all kinds of levels and degrees and this adheres to the illusory world of levels and degrees.
But I could be wrong and my ego hopes that I am.
However, I do realize that I have no authority whatsoever to define or critique the "experiences" of others and my doing so borders on the absurd. Maybe many have merged with the infinite, yet my "ego" tells me that can't be since that role has been reserved for me! LOL!!
I do believe that we all have these glimpses, yet "egos" not versed in the "enlightenment" jargon have difficulties anchoring to a definition - "Whoa! What the f--k is happening here!" (my exact words).
I believe this was the condition of Eckhart Tolle who turned to spiritual definitions only after his "experience" and this was so that his "ego" could define what had occurred, and thus present it to other egos, which is equally absurd to me since the ego cannot possibly understand and must make it conform to categories of thought (which I believe you made note of in your previous post).
I tend to believe that we all have "glimpses" into the inconceivable. However, we can't create the conditions for this "happening" and there is no preparation required (in fact "preping" for it may obstruct it).
However, the "look see" lacks permanence (too much fear) and one returns to ego mind and the defining. This in no way detracts from the experiences, yet, my opinion is that enlightenment is permanent. The "You" is gone for good and so is the illusory world that supports a "you." There are theories that many "choose" to remain and teach, however, I tend to doubt this (yet I remain open to it).
Enlightenment to me is all or nothing and you can't straddle the fence, so to speak. We can have all kinds of awakening experiences at all kinds of levels and degrees and this adheres to the illusory world of levels and degrees.
But I could be wrong and my ego hopes that I am.
Is Death Part of the Divine Plan?
It has been very difficult for me to consider that God would allow for murder or death in anyway. I would contemplate what possible reason the Perfect Mind of God (and I feel that most of us probably agree that God is "perfect") would have for allowing that which God Creates to die and especially to be murdered. Why would perfection create that which is so utterly imperfect? What manifestation of "perfection" exists in death and murder?
Did God create perfection, which, for some reason, attained the thought/belief that it was imperfect?
I have come to a tentative conclusion that God as Perfection would not create IMperfection as that would negate perfection and perfection cannot be negated else it would not be perfection.
But then we're told that God's ways are "mysterious" and not meant for we mere mortals to understand. Yet, my mind rebels against this explanation too, asking again, why would perfection (God) create "beings" (us) that are denied understanding of that perfection?
I have thus come to the tentative conclusion that God did not Create imperfection since to do so would negate God.
Therefore, if God did not create imperfection, could it be that a "creation" of God believed it could separate from God and in that belief imperfection was perceived (and made manifest) by that "part" that somehow forgot it was the "whole"?
Obviously my tentative conclusions have been influenced by many other religious viewpoints, particularly Buddhism. Nevertheless, they remain tentative and always subject to change.
Just thinking out loud...
Did God create perfection, which, for some reason, attained the thought/belief that it was imperfect?
I have come to a tentative conclusion that God as Perfection would not create IMperfection as that would negate perfection and perfection cannot be negated else it would not be perfection.
But then we're told that God's ways are "mysterious" and not meant for we mere mortals to understand. Yet, my mind rebels against this explanation too, asking again, why would perfection (God) create "beings" (us) that are denied understanding of that perfection?
I have thus come to the tentative conclusion that God did not Create imperfection since to do so would negate God.
Therefore, if God did not create imperfection, could it be that a "creation" of God believed it could separate from God and in that belief imperfection was perceived (and made manifest) by that "part" that somehow forgot it was the "whole"?
Obviously my tentative conclusions have been influenced by many other religious viewpoints, particularly Buddhism. Nevertheless, they remain tentative and always subject to change.
Just thinking out loud...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)