On the Christian Way
By Don Iannone
Too much separation
...causing us to lose
...forever
...essential parts of ourselves.
Too many concepts
...that divide
...and conquer
...who we really are.
Too much blood...spilled, and
too much hate
...from those who claim to love.
Too much blind adherence
...to rules and promises
...just like all other rules and promises.
Too many tormented souls
...longing for release
...from their clinging
...to self-made truths
...masquerading as Divine words.
Too much unfaithfulness
...from the faithful followers
...who can't convince themselves
...so they prey (pray) on others, hoping
to make themselves believe.
Must there be a Christ
...separate, in any way, from God
...and a God separate, in any way
...from any of us?
Must we cower
...like lost and aimless sheep
...only to be slaughtered
...by our own illusions?
Heaven
...but a faint promise
...because we live in Hell.
Hell
...merely a bad dream
...forcing us to believe
...there must be a Heaven.
God
...but a bad excuse
...for ignoring the paper thin reality
...that we just are, and nothing more.
Satan
...the fallen angel
...only the opposing archetype
to our concept of a goody two shoes God.
Christ
...a once living and breathing mystic
...like each of us
...seeking his true nature
...and finally finding
...just as you too can discover--
that love is the answer.
God is you
...and you are God.
That will never change
...no matter what you believe.
Do as Christ did: start your own church, but
realize it's just your church
...where you can find your heart
...and where your heart can find you.
Rejoice in having found your way
...and bask in the glory of your own being.
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Of course you realize that this post is a sure indicator you are possessed by Satan.
But like we said when we were kids, takes one to know one...
Darius...You cracked me up on that one. I was wondering why it was getting so hot in my office. I have been enjoying the exchanges on your blog.
I liked this. Satan or not!
And Delhi is HOT as always!
Gautami,
Thanks for stopping by. I'll bet Delhi is hot--with passion for life, and in celebration of the divine that lives within all of us.
You deduce right! Thats exactly what I meant.
BTW,I too linked you to my blog!
Kathy,
Thanks for dropping by.
It is funny. I think we can call it "Darian humor." Is that correct Darius?
My blog was hit by a couple lightening blots so i removed the comment moderation from the blog. If the universe chooses to honor me in this way, no need to moderate the comments. Right?
Excuse the spelling on that last post, folks. Too much lightning...
You are one special human being Don, and I couldn't agree with you more. I followed you here from Darius Blog and have enjoyed reading your comments over there, especially the one to Paul. Thank you for validating what I have always felt. Thank you!
Liquidplastic,
Thanks for stopping by and offering the very kind comment. Come back often to visit. I will check out your blog.
I enjoyed the poem ...I agree that our concepts often obscure reality.
I had to laugh at Darius's comment!
Hey Rob,
Darian humor, eh? Funny. Glad you enjoyed the poem. Something just welled up inside me and it was either the poem or something else that would come out.
I think this is the stuff that myths are made of. To dream you are God like Jesus is probably the worst nightmare this world has ever known.
Imemine,
Could you clarify your comment, please? Not sure I get your drift. Thanks.
Don,
I'm sorry; I should have read your poem very carefully.
I've been meditating a lot about all these ideas we get from books and the internet. A lot of it is useless, I think. There is so much talk about enlightenment and becoming enlightened. Many people repeat things they have read, heard from their many teachers, or fellow seekers.
If you follow the reasoning you will be carried away instantly without thinking about the implications or consequences of the ideas.
For example, Nisargadatta's "I am That". What does it really mean? I think for many people it means you or I are everything, reality, the intelligence that God is, God, etc. People equate the I or ego with everything and this is very confusing. I don't think this is what is implied. The I or ego is illusory and has no absolute value or meaning. It's just an idea, concept, or dream in God's mind. You cannot equate it with God himself. Finally the value of a philosophical concept can only be judged by its practical application or result. If a concept makes you think you are God, and cannot make you turn water into wine, walk on water, resurrect the dead, then it is useless. It doesn't prove anything.
I believe a lot of these confusions come from the use of the words I, self, Self, SELF, Atman, Brahman, God, etc. They were being used in the very ancient books like the Bagavad Gita and the Upanishads, and people up to these days keep using them without really understanding what it is really meant. I can tell you a lot of things, but everybody has his own orientation, reasoning, and insights. And most of them come from the many teachers, gurus, philosophers, who have no idea of what enlightenment is really all about, and who are writing numerous books about it, adding to the confusion. I suggest we all try to think for ourselves.
That poem is quite a summation, a great climax of thoughts, and my favorite part is the 'paper thin' that our reality and we, are. Much of it struck chords and it all worked together amazingly well, I wish I had all the answers to instantly dissolve the problems, walk on some water, and turn some into my favorite wine, but maybe tomorrow. Never give up. But being God is not the object, knowing Him is.
Very good and long Poem, I liked it.
Imemine,
Thanks for your clarification.
A word on poetry, which I know you understand. Poetry is not always a very direct way to say things; in part because if reflects a stream within us that has dashes of logic, emotion, spiritual impulses, and other inner dribblings. It's a useful way for me to "let my being gush."
I agree with many of your points about how all of us (ALL of us) fall prey to illusion. Like you, I meditate on these issues and seek understanding.
I have many of the same concerns about New Age spirituality, which is often very unclear and confused about its underlying philosphical worldview. For example, the notion that consciousness is energy. Books talk about the vibrant and energetic universe. This view is what some call "physics envy",' or the use of matter-energy concepts to explain consciousness or spirit.
Nisargadatta's views are tough to actually live. What I find most valuable about his work (and those he learned from) is his ruthless drilling into "that which comes before" all thinking and all else. He is an extreme idealist, which foists into the view that all matter is illusion. (The maya problem in Hindu.) Nisargadatta attaempts to drive us back to our fundamental inner sense of "I am-ness." For me, that is meaningful and valuable.
The problem with extreme idealism (Hindu and other) is it introduces a performative contradiction; meaning one's performance or action in the world is inconsistent with one's philosophical claim or belief. If you drive your car into the path of another car, they will crash and you could die. There is a material reality. There is also a subjective reality, which is equally real.
My worldview says both matter and mind (spirit) exist (are real) and both go all the way down (panpsychism). Alfred North Whitehead and other process philosophers are most associated with this worldview. Some call it the mind-in-matter view.
I would add "God" to the list of concepts you provide in your most recent post. There is great confusion on God as some ultimate reality being pointed to in different ways by different religions and spiritual belief systems. Is there a God? What is God?
Imemine, do you believe in God? What is your concept of God?
I grew up believing in the Christian God, which no longer works for me. Many Buddhists, as you probably know, do not believe in a God being. Much about Buddhism appeals to me personally.
On one level, I agree with Carl Jung and William James that, from a psycholgical standpoint, the proof of the existence of God as an extrapsychic or metaphysical divinity is a superfluous problem. Jung believed that God was real as a psychological fact, although some claimed Jung to be an atheist. William James said God is real because he produces real effects (in a psychological sense).
What difference does it make whether we believe in a god-like figure or entity? This a rhetorical question. Some say believing in God instills moral conduct and causes us to reign in harmful impulses and behaviors. Karma does the same without an appeal to a supernatural god.
I am deeply interested in the psychological issues associated with religious belief, or what Lionel Corbett calls the religious function of the psyche.
Your advice on thinking for ourselves is very consistent with my view. We should question.
Good exchanging with you. Who are you by the way? I can't glean much about you from your blog. Maybe I missed it. My blog and other links on it tell you quite a lot about me.
Jim,
Thanks for stopping by and sharing your comments.
Please say more about your views about our relationship to matter. Are we JUST matter? Unlikely.
The flower is you, me, and anyone else that observes it and sees it for what it is.
The flower photo is a non-proprietary image database. Nice, huh?
Jim,
Thanks for sharing your wonderful thoughts. Tell me about the Hebrew letter, Caph, which you have been wrestling with.
Thanks Jim. Nice synopsis and observations. Is God really separate from us, or do we simply believe God is a separate reality? Is God a “Him?” Is it possible that we are all part of God and there is no separation? How does one “know” God? See my post in response to Imemine in this series. Maybe something there that relates to our exchange here.
Don,
I guess to end the confusion and stop energy-wastage due to too much reasoning and discussions, we simply should stop identifying with this or that. This is higher wisdom.
I must confess that I have been reading a Dutch translation of one of Robert Powell's book, following Nisargadtta's line of reasoning, but was not at all convinced of its truth or philosophical soundness. Instead I keep to J. Krishnamurti's view.
Moreover, the ego, which identifies a lot with the personal pronoun I, seems to like this idea of being That, Evrything, or God. This inevitably leads to confusion especially for people not acquinted with these ideas, by thinking that the ego, which is what we are in some sense, is That. Resulting in self-aggrandizement for some or many?
If you have time to browse thru my older blog entries, you might get a better idea.
Thank you.
"God is you, and you are God. That will never change no matter what you believe."
I like that. And your line at the end about church "where you can find your heart and where your heart can find you" - that reminded me of a blog entry I wrote that was about the same sort of thing: Sacred place, sacred space: a sense of home
Hi Don, and all, I just left two long comments under the above two posts, one on matter, and the other on the letter caph and it in relation to the birth of 'matter' in genesis chapter one, vs 9-13.
So here I will only talk about this 'God' thing. God is the Continuity that exists, but that is not 'time' in a 'matter' sense. I call that 'continuity' Him, He, God, and I 'sense' Him with something other than my '5 senses'. My 5 senses are 'matter time-continuity' things, they are part of and inseparable from the 'fabric' of perception itself. the fabric and the perceiving it are one and the same, and our bodies which seem to house these senses, is also inside and a inseparable part of that fabric, the fabric of matter. We are, I am, a part, First and Foremost, of the non-time continuity, God, I am not God, I am a localized piece of God, and that location that I am, has a name. Jim. Jim has been put in, by name, into the time-fabric continuum, and Jim takes to himself some of its matter for a body and Jim uses the body to work in the fabric. Jim will do this for awhile and only has one free choice. Jim can work in the fabric thinking he is doing it for himself, or Jim can work in the fabric thinking he is doing it for God, who named Jim and put him in the fabric. Either way, Jim will work in the fabric, where he was put and do what he is/was put there to do. Jim's name is a clue to why he is there where he is and when he is in the fabric of time.
Now for me this is not 'book-learned' and recited therefrom. I know this by a 'vision/dream' in which I witnessed both continuums in relation to each other, and I moved between them, and still on occassion, do. This, none of this experience, is by my own choosing or power. Actually, I might say, it is done to me, I am moved from here to there and back and for specific reasons each time. But having this 'experience', I speak it. I will tell you that the idea that there are 'spirits' without bodies is ridiculous, childish play. God is All, but localizes plentifully, and each and every localization has a name. Each name has content and can exist in a number of different but similar contexts, a body is always involved and supplied by the name and its needs at the moment it is localized in any fabric of being.
When you die here from this fabric, you will revert to your generic name and you will immediately be in-body accordingly, you are never without a body.
What changes, and the source of the false concept of 'bodilessness' is that different fabrics have differing degrees of 'stuffness', and so, by comparison, one is more subtle than another. But the reality is that each one is very substantial and real material to the inhabitants of that fabric.
There are quite a few false concepts that can be cleared up and corrected, and that is probably a good thing to do. Question is, will anyone be ready to change their minds and trade in an old concept that is false.
Another example is that 'birds' are emotional/mental/psychological 'projections' done by living fish. each exist in a different fabric of time and substance, but they are one creature, one intelligence, one soul continuum existing in two fields. They actually connect with each other in 'spiritual' space and communication. Look at the bird, see the fish, see the same mind 'swimming' in a same body but in the air and the body is adjusted to the air? That is clued by the fact that both are part of the Day Five Fabric Reality of Genesis Chapter One.
More another time. Thanks for the opportunity to speak, God for me is alive and well, personal and very emotionally involved in everything, and that emotional fabric is far greater than humans picture, their picture is based only on their one-place point of view.
Most of IMEMINE's thinking, I find useful and I think he does also, and it is to force out some issues that can then be looked at, that is the way he works for me, I love it, he excites my mind, he causes me to want to say things and look for ways to do so, things that I wasn't even thinking about until he instigated the thoughts. He is ofter a source of 'refresher course' work. I agree with his basic position, I think I do anyway. But I disagree with some other things, like the Buddha, to me Buddha think goes only so far, and stops short of full travel, starts, but gets bogged down in silence and not-knowing. There are many details to 'meditation' that i also have problems with, especially the use of it with 'mantras' or words like 'om' and I have studied this stuff enough to know why I reject some of it, but these are other subjects for other times.
You can see from my remarks that God is personal, a Him, and knowable, but the knowable is by His Will only, He comes to you, how to you get that to happen? You seek till you can't find, then you refuse to quit and somehow you stretch yourself too far, then you are lost, and then you will be found. That is the best way I can put it. Something like maybe JA is doing, she is stretched mentally so far that she is lost now, I don't know if that is also emotional, if not, it doesn't count, it is only an exercise, play, perhaps preparation for another time, but if it is emotional as well as mental, for her, then she will suffer some serious effects from her results, and due to those results and according to their intensity, she will recieve what she can't find, but it will be to the extent of her seriousness. Sorry JA but you are a good example here for this idea. My apologies, again.
-
Imemine,
Thanks for the latest post. You will get no argument from me on the need to stop pointing to this or that and just be. I am also fond of J. Krishnamurti's work. Very much so. I will check out some of your earlier posts.
Anonymous Julie,
You said:
"God is you, and you are God. That will never change no matter what you believe."
I like that. And your line at the end about church "where you can find your heart and where your heart can find you" - that reminded me of a blog entry I wrote that was about the same sort of thing: Sacred place, sacred space: a sense of home"
I read your post. Really enjoyed it. Thanks.
I think everybody deep down wants to feel a connection to themselves, others, and the divine in both.
Anonymous Julie,
You said:
"I am That and you are That.
Nothing is, but here I am writing, here I am thinking, here I am questioning; I am, or at least I seem to be.
Don and Rob - me three. Boy do I ever."
It seems to help me to remind myself that "I am." Not that I am anything in particular, but just that I am. I am present. I am a sentient being.
Jim,
You really put a lot into your last post "on God." Thank you.
I still lean toward more of the Buddhist worldview. I can appreciate other views--deeply so. The dialogue strengthen all of us and opens us to ideas outside ourselves. That is a good thing.
I don't ever again want to be a "labelled believer" of any type. Did that for the first 18 years of my life as a "Christian" and that was the worst experience of my life. So, I even avoid calling myself a Buddhist.
I want outside the box--all boxes. That is not completely possible. So, I create my own box: part poetry, part meditation, part sacred geometry, part natural philosopher, part humanist, and a big part undefined and always changing.
For what it's worth...
Don
Post a Comment