Quote of the Week #23- The Music of the Earth

The earth has music for those who listen.

--George Santayana

God Speaking, Humans Hearing, and a Nice Jewish Boy Meets Rabbi Jesus

God Speaking, Humans Hearing, and a Nice Jewish Boy Meets Rabbi Jesus

I recently made the acquaintance of a person by the name of Ben Johnson, who is a Christian active in interfaith activities. We exchanged books, and he asked my opinion on a particular chapter from one of his books. The basic premise of the book, The God Who Speaks is that humans not only can communicate with God via prayer, meditation, etc., but that God also communicates with humans, and this communication remains available and is not just a thing of the past from the time of ancient prophets and teachers. The particular chapter he asked me to comment on posed the idea that the incarnation of Jesus was one form of God speaking/expressing/communicating with humans. Following is my response, slightly revised, that I would like to share now with a broader audience, that I originally shared with Ben, appropriately, on Easter Sunday:

Ben,

You asked me to share with you my thoughts about Chapter 2 of your book, The God Who Speaks. I thought it might be helpful to also read the Introduction and Chapter 1, which I did. First off, I agree with you that this is an important subject to address, and I agree with your assertion, contrary to other viewpoints, that revelation, prophecy, God’s voice, guidance, etc. has been and remains accessible. I also agree that there are issues as to how to ascertain genuine Divine Guidance and distinguish it from imbalanced, delusional, egoic fantasy and imaginings. I once took a little online course with a Jewish teacher that touched on this subject and these issues. His answer was that there are some qualities by which to ascertain real revelation from false revelation. One factor was that the communication is always stated in the present tense. Another factor is that the communication is devoid of any emotional charge, that it is provided in a very matter-of-fact, non-emotional manner. There may have been one or two other factors that I cannot now recall (another may have been that the communication will not advocate any form of violence or harm to others), but the above two rang true for me.

Getting to the specifics of Chapter 2, and trying to keep this communication somewhat brief, I will address a few issues from an interfaith perspective. Chapter 2 is premised upon the idea, taken as fact and an essential core belief of most Christians, that Jesus was an incarnation of God. The first issue concerns the common Christian claim that Jesus was the one and only incarnation of God that ever was and ever will be. I believe that common Jewish and Islamic belief is that there is no such possibility as an incarnation of God. The common Jewish definition of the Messiah does not include the Messiah being an incarnation, and of course, Jews do not recognize Jesus as fulfilling the definition of the Messiah. My understanding of the basic Islamic belief is that Jesus was one in a line of great prophets, including all of the Old Testament Prophets, concluding with Mohammed being the last in the line of these great prophets of The Book. For them, the New Testament is like The Book, Volume 2, and the Koran is like The Book, Volume 3. Of course, Jews only recognize Volume 1 and are thusly a bit annoyed at Christians referring to Volume 1 as the “Old” Testament, which Jews call the Tanach. Sometimes, out of deference to this sensitivity, I will refer to the New Testament as the Christian Testament and the Old Testament as the Tanach, a practice that interfaith Christians might want to consider employing.

A common Hindu perspective would be that Jesus is one of many incarnations of God. Hindu scriptures and lore are full of stories including divine incarnations, virgin births, miracles, transfigurations, etc. as found in the Christian Testament. I have heard an argument from some enlightened Christians that perhaps the correct translation is that Jesus was a son of the only God, not that Jesus was the only son of God. This viewpoint is also in keeping with the perspective of many in the western esoteric traditions, such as Theosophy, which consider Jesus one of many Masters. 

My personal viewpoint lies somewhere between the Islamic and Hindu views, but may be closest with the Theosophical view. I have many questions about traditional Jewish and Christian concepts of a Messiah, enunciated in Chapter 15 of my book, IVRI. The whole idea of an incarnation, from a Christian or Hindu perspective, poses many provocative issues that I do not wish to delve into here for the sake of brevity. It seems like there are many questions as to how to define an incarnation/avatar and distinguish that definition from other beings who are not incarnations. If God is omnipresent, how can God be more present in Jesus or Krishna than in other people? Transfiguration is also something recognized by Hindus as one sign of yogic achievement. It is my understanding that those involved with The Vedanta Center and other followers of Ramakrishna regard him in much the same way as Christians regard Jesus, although they would be more willing to acknowledge other incarnations and not make a claim to exclusivity as most Christians do. I personally feel most aligned with the Jewish/Islamic/Theosophist view that there are great agents of the Divine who can lower their operating frequency to participate at the physical level, but who can also elevate their frequency to slightly higher than physical levels. Such beings, when appearing in the physical realm, are capable of entering without the agency of human physical birth as we know it, and can leave without the process of human death as we know it, although they may also appear to be born and to die as normal mortal humans. I’ll just leave it at that for now. 

Quote of the Week #22 - Out-Winging Religion

Hammarskjöld’s friends, responsible for publishing his journal after his untimely death, were upset with the Anglo-American poet W. H. Auden, who had taken on the English translation of Markings. His draft introduction, circulated for comment before publication, struck them in part as offensive. To no avail, they did what they could to persuade Auden to revise it.

Auden had made the smug posthumous suggestion that Hammarskjöld would have been better off if he had attended church more regularly – like Auden. “Our views on DH’s religion differ from yours,” they wrote to him. “While keeping his roots in the Christian faith, we think that DH may hae ‘out-winged’ what is usually described as religion, reaching a point where it does not matter anymore what label you give it. That needs, we think, just as much, and perhaps even more, discipline than any ecclesiastical routine may be able to give.”

--from the article “Stillness in Action; Reflections on Dag Hammarskjöld” by Roger Lipsey in the November 2013 issue of Shambhala Sun magazine

For Atheists/Agnostics

[The following is something I wrote in response to an email I received from someone expressing their lack of connection with anything spiritual or related to God. I felt it worth sharing with a wider audience for anyone else of like mind.]

Concerning your lack of connection with anything you deem spiritual or related to God, one thing that comes to mind is "conscience", the source within us that helps us establish some sense of right and wrong, morality, ethics. Do you think you have a "conscience"? If so, what is the source of your conscience? I would say that Spirit, God and Conscience are all closely interconnected. Also closely connected would be the source of any sense you may have of humanity, brotherhood/sisterhood, etc.

Another thing that comes to mind is a sense of aesthetics/beauty. If you are inspired by certain works of art or music, the question is, what is it within you that stirs such feelings? I would again say that Spirit, God and a sense of what is beautiful, poetic, aesthetically moving are all closely interconnected.

And last, but not least, what is the difference between two bodies lying on the floor, side by side, one that of someone, human or animal, who has just died, and the other that of a similar being that is still alive. Their physical components are the same, but the living being is animated by something that no longer exists in the dead being. I would again say that Spirit, God and the life force that distinguishes between what is alive and dead are all closely interconnected.

Also, if you don't believe in Spirit or God or things like that, can you define what it is that you don't believe in? Maybe what you don't believe in is not really Spirit or God, but erroneous or incomplete common conceptions. Maybe there is a different definition of these terms more in line with the above that you can believe in.

One more thing for your contemplation about God and spirituality: What is infinity? As far as numbers go, all kinds of infinities are all around us. If you start with zero on the number line and count positive integers, it goes to infinity, if you count negative integers, it goes to infinity. There are even all kinds of infinities between each integer. 1.111111...goes on forever, as does 1.2222..., etc. If you divide one by three, you get 1.33333... forever. Pi is a non-repeating computation that goes on forever. I think that God and Spirit are closely related to Infinity.

Quote of the Week #21 - Three Strange Angels

What is the knocking?

What is the knocking at the door in the night?

It is somebody wants to do us harm.

No, no, it is the three strange angels.

Admit them, admit them.

--from the poem Song of a Man Who Has Come Through, by D. H. Lawrence

[The following pieces were written in 1973, when I was 22 years old. They represent the outcome of much catharsis and a significant epiphany, after several years of intense and often agonizing spiritual longing and searching.]

Existence

First Principles:

      I am.  I want to be.  I want to continue being.  To my limited conscious knowledge, I was born not of my own choosing.  For many years, I did not question the fact or meaning of my birth.  In this sense, I was a "reactive" and dependent being.  I was dependent on outside sources and stimuli to nurture me, and I reacted to them accordingly to satisfy my will and drive to live.  If I was left alone with only my own resources at that time, I would have died; even though the fact of my very being was saying, "I am.  I want to be.  I want to continue being."

And as I grew and was nurtured, I continued to react to stimuli, pressures, and forces presented to me so that I could continue to be.  I reacted to the ever-increasing varieties of stimuli presented to me accordingly; I avoided pain and discomfort as best I could and reacted in ways that would bring me pleasure and comfort.  I did not question the authorities and sources of nurture that I was dependent on; I just reacted to all presented to me in accordance with my will to live.

During the process of my nurturing, there somehow slowly evolved a self-consciousness and self-awareness that eventually led to the acute realization that it was within the realm of my individual resources to cease to be.  Having the knowledge of this power led to the realization that I no longer had to be if I did not want to be.  And further self-consciousness, following from this new knowledge made me question the very fact of my being, which was something I had never done before.

Now, questioning my very being also had the effect of questioning all the things that my being seemed to be contingent on -  all the stimuli, pressures, and forces that I had been reacting to in accordance with my will to live. 

So, since being born, I have gradually been transformed from an entity unconsciously willing to live and unquestioningly reacting to the environment in order to fulfill that will to live, to an entity that consciously questions the will to live and that has at its disposal the power to negate its life if it so desires.  One profound result of this transformation is the conscious realization that I need not immediately react to many of the stimuli, forces, and pressures that I unconsciously thought I always had to be reacting to in order to live.  There is an important difference between obligation to live and desire to live:  the unconscious reactive being saw no choice but to live, which often made living an obligatory task; the conscious being is not obliged to life or any of its tasks, for it can accept or reject life, with its contingencies, as it so desires.  I am still a dependent being and I still am a reactive being, but the added dimension of this acute consciousness is tantamount to the birth of a new self.  The life of the new self is its own; I can choose to live or die as I so please.  With either choice, I am aware that I face factors that as of yet are unknown to me and that are outside of my control and/or understanding.

*          *          *

The babbling mind questioning itself:

I am, therefore I think and I question.  Or perhaps, I think, therefore I am and I question.

But who are you?

I am me.

But why do you exist?

I exist because I want to.

Why do you want to?

Because.

Because why?

Because...why not?  I need no other explanation or justification.

But with all the suffering, inconsistencies, contradictions, inhumanity, etc...in the world, and all the pressures on your life and the often absurdity and doubtfulness of it all, why go on living?  Why not just end it all now?

I've thought about all of that over and over again, and every time I ponder it, I decide to live.  It's not all that bad, and besides, I'll die soon enough anyway.  I think there's definitely something worth living for; I can feel it in my bones.  I have my steadfast will to live, to see myself through life, and to learn what I can along the way.  That's all there is to it.  All else will follow.  Right now, I am, I want to be, and I want to continue to be.

MMM...

*    *     *

At every moment, the decision is automatically made and accepted that I want to live.  But this automatic subconscious decision-making is at the call of closer conscious scrutiny and re-evaluation whenever it is desired.  And since my continued being is a function of my on-going desire and choice to be, my life should at least always be to my contentment.

The Guiding Principle and Its Demand for Honesty.

There is a force within me that is not within my conscious control or comprehension.  I know it exists because I have in some way perceived, experienced it and have felt its effects upon me.  I am conscious of its existence and accept its existence as a condition of my life.  Yet its existence has the effect of affecting my decision to live and how to live my life.  It is a determining factor of my behavior in that it judges my actions as either satisfactory or unsatisfactory.  When I act in accordance and harmony with it, it leads to my affirming my life and way of living;  when I act in opposition and discord to it, it makes me question and doubt my reasons for living.  In this sense, it is one and the same with my will to live and the essence of my life.  To consciously deny it would necessitate my self-imposed death.  To lose conscious touch with it would be to lose self-consciousness and meaning to my life.  To merge consciousness with it would be to become my life and my reason for living.

Unless I wish to speak for it, my existence speaks for itself.

*    *     *

I.

I am.

I think.

I question.

I have the power to be.

I have the power to cease being.

I constantly question my reason for being.

The constant questioning of my life necessitates the constant affirming of my life, acceptance of the conditions necessary to live and exercising the power to meet those conditions; or the negating of my life, acceptance of the conditions necessary to die, and exercising of the power to meet those conditions.

I am obliged to choose between life and death.  All that follows from this decision is a manifestation of that choice, of my will.

              Some Illuminations on Existence

Further Principles:

I don't want to live.

And I don't want to die.

I don't want anything.

I am not obliged to choose to live or die.

I don't choose to live, and I don't choose to die.

      If I live, it is because I happen to live.

If I die, it is because I happen to die.

I'm just watching it all happen.

*          *          *

I find that I have a drive within me that is the motivating force of my life.

I also find that I have a body.

I don't necessarily want my body.

But I don't want to be rid of my body, either.

I just happen to find myself in a body, so here I am.

Something tells me I am not my body.

I can't be my body, and at the same time, watch my body function.

I don't even want my body to function.

I don't want anything.

My body is functioning because the motivating force of my life makes it function.

I'm pretty sure that if my body does not get killed by some outside force, that someday it will wear itself out and cease to function.  I'm not 100% positive of this, but it seems to be a general rule that bodies eventually cease to function, and although mine could be an exception, I doubt it.  And even if or when my body does cease to function, that doesn't mean it will cease to exist.  But maybe it will cease to exist too.  I'll just have to wait and see.

Now, the motivating force of my life is not my body, and perhaps it will continue to exist and function after my body wears itself out and ceases to function.

I don't know if the motivating force of my life will wear itself out as my body probably will.  It may be possible for my body to cease functioning before it wears itself out and without outside forces killing it; in which case, the cessation of the functioning of my body would be due to the cessation of the functioning of the motivating force of my life.  And just because the motivating force of my life may cease to function, that doesn't mean it ceases to exist.  But maybe it'll cease to exist, too.

Now even if the motivating force of my life does cease to function and exist, that doesn't mean that I will cease to function.  I never wanted to have a motivating force anyway.  Not that I didn't want it.  I don't want anything.  I'm just watching it all happen.

So who am I?

I don't know.

Maybe I'm eternal.

Or maybe I'll cease to function someday or wear myself out.  But that doesn't mean I'll cease existing.  But maybe I'll cease to exist, too.

Who knows?

I'll just have to wait and see.