Monday, June 26, 2006

Some Spiritual Meanderings Into Infinity


The view that, in polytheism, one god can correct another, although somewhat selfevident, never occurred to me, as a heavily programmed monotheist.:) Yahweh certainly needs to be "brought down a peg or two.":) Perhaps there is no more representative, or tragic, example of this miserable "godbased" egotism than the pompous and disastrous wargod Yahweh.

Although the cult responsible for most of my early programming was ostensibly "Christian," it was repeatedly made crystalclear that the cult worshipped the ancient wargod. It was one of the most stunning, astonishing, and awakening experiences of this or any life to realize that Yahweh was only a parochial and local god, not by any means the God of the entire cosmos. That certainly flipped everything topsy-turvy almost overnight, and this redefinition occurred on the tail-end of a mystical experience.

That Yahweh considered himself to be alone supreme explains the indefensible "bullying" behavior of Yahweh in his most ancient forms. I often call these godimages the "protojehovic" portrayals of the god. If he does not like anyone, or if a small tribal nation does not fall at his feet, he just obliterated them. This is quite the opposite of the behavior of the Lord of Love.

People, fundies, often say, "How can you dare to judge God?" That does make me sound like a pretty stupid idiot!:) Except their argument that "God is quite beyond human understanding" must mean that God is incomprehensibly better than, and superior to, us human viruses. It cannot possibly mean that God is incomprehensible in unfairness, cruelty, or immorality. I agree with fundies that God is beyond understanding. But he is never below what we justly demand from each other in terms of acceptable and good behaviors. He can never be incomprehensibly evil or stupid.

Yahweh is identified as the "god of illusion."

Most traditionalists and fundies are so closed to new ideas that they would simply label the concept of their god as an e.t. "lunatic," and immediately trash it. Iron walls against communication, and against even learning and growing, are constructed by such closedmindedness. But it surely helps when you "know everything," as many fundies are convinced that they do. And sometimes, they are so very lunatic as actually to ake this claim! This is a clear case of "gnosophobia" (fear of knowing). Deep down, they know that they are the pitiable viruses of the galaxy, and so, their approach is childish: Pretend to know everything, slam shut your mind, and do not let anyone even challenge your premise. But can they possibly believe that anyone believes this bizarre fantasy.

I think that, as long as you are grounded with some certainty in your premises, you need fear neither agreement nor disagreement. But if you are so grounded, you are also protected from even a subconscious search for universal agreement. it is a similar basic "fear of certainty" that infects so many with a disagreeable disposition. But people can certainly disagree without being isagreeable. And life is fun when convincing, or even disputing, in a friendly way with, others.

But it is fun in a different way when you can discover or create points of agreement. My philosophy tends to be strengthened and solidified by both agreement and disagreement. As you know, I honestly do want, and try, to avoid dogmatic inflexibility. By my nature, libra, I do not like argument, dispute, messiness, bad feelings, or any attitude that leans, however subtly, towards animosity or hatred.

A concept made of stone is usually thoughtless, and often, unkind in expression. I believe that truly intellectual people can disagree soundly without crudity or rudeness. And harmony is also fun, and

If you choose your friends with care, I do not think that the frantic search for approval is inevitable. For flattery is, at its foundation, dishonesty with an ulterior motive or hidden agenda. Again, the principle of moderation kicks in: Avoid yes-people, but also, avoid those who will fill your life with, in Empedoclean terms, all strife and no Love. After all, people need a balance of both. A life surrounded by disagreeable grumps would drain much of the fun from life. On the other hand, being surrounded by yes-people would never challenge you, and you would likely be severely retarded in interior growth, or would cease to grow altogether. So, give me the Middle Path of the Buddha any day.

There were 365 gods worshipped by the cluster of tribes to which Mohammed's tribe belonged, but that one called "allah" was the god of his particular tribe. It is fascinating to note that, if this is historical fact, Mohammed very likely took his local, tribal god and arbitrarily declared him to be the god of the whole cosmos. If he can imaginatively be traced to the e.t.'s who originally settled earth and founded culture, then Allah is a mirror of Yahweh. For both underwent the same mutations, and both were mistakenly regarded as the One, as God.

I might be an actual "pollyannist" if I said that fools do not exist --even in a wide variety-- in our society and on our planet. I think that, as a term of berating, you could certainly do a lot worse-- using much stronger and graphic put-downs that would make your hair stand on end! You have probably heard the words to which I refer. Off the top of the head, it could be said that there are about twenty words that are more powerful, and much more emotionally charged, than the mild "fool." Since these are usually not used at all in formal or even polite writing, I will spare you a list of them. But I trust that you are street-wise enough to be familiar with at least some of these obscenities. I do not know whether you, as I, have suffered from being labelled with this word, "fool."

And, to be fair, there is a Jesus-statement that, at least in one translation, says that to call a person a "despicable fool" will land a person in the "fires" of karmic hell.:) It is due to this warning that I have never called anyone, not with a fully serious intent, a fool. But I cannot completely collapse to the status of "yes-man" here.:):)

There is, at any rate, no reason in the cosmos that I would want to defend this word anyway.

That, btw, is an awful and particularly destructive form of abuse that I try to avoid-- gossip. Having been its victim, I do have a sensitivity to it. At times, it is a real challenge to be truly objective and positive about all people all the time. That is getting into the area of being "pollyannish" again.

In Matthew 23, I notice that, when he did not like a behavior,and especially when it blatantly hurt the innocent, Jesus did not hesitate to blast the "hypocrites" of his day, despite the fact that he was a man of true peace and non-judgment.

After years of thought and research, I've found that "judgment" and "discernment/discrimination" have very different meanings. The two represent very distinct processes. To avoid "judgment" need not make you a gray, neutral person who never has any passion about any human behavior. For "judgment," as a "technical"term in spirituality, means evaluating the total worth of any being as irredeemable, insalvageable, and that the person has no good inside. This can accurately be said of no one. Even george b, under many layers of "demons" such as insatiable greed, does have a dim core of Light somewhere, way down deep!:)

But to say that the activities of the neonazis are hurtful, and that their pseudogenetics is foolish-- this, for example, constitutes only observation and opinion. It is not judgment, which would claim that
there is no good at all in any neonazi anywhere. To send a person to "hell forever" is judgment. To decide to reject ideas, concepts, teachings, and/or behaviors, is well within the perimeters of valid human freedom.

As I understand the cosmos, it is all energy. Energy is not "physical" in the way that we usually use that term. It is, by definition, not "material." And the fact that matter is all energy is not necessarily a
reciprocative fact: It does not imply that "energy" is "physical." In the end, nothing, in fact, is "physical" in the sense that we commonly use that term. Even a table of beautiful marble is, in the final analysis, tiny sparks of energy or force dancing around each other (atoms) at incredible speeds. there is nothing ultimately "physical," "material," or solid in the universe, in the most scientific analysis of its constituent matter.

In the relative world, I believe in the relative duality of matter and energy. Despite, as Heraclitus might interpret things, the fact that a marble table is fire, you cannot use it to warm your hand, and you could not play poker on a table made of fire, or while the table was burning!

It is, in fact, another line of evidence that the mystical view of the world holds truth that the atom was not the atomoi of Democritus. This word, as I'm certain that you know, means "indivisible." And the atom is anything but!

So, like most physicists of the modern world, mystics also use the relative dichotomy of "physical" matter and "non-material" energy. I believe that the Elohim were beings (consciousness) somehow interlaced within a "body" of something like fire-- pure energy, without matter. Here, science in its pure form runs a bit dry, and we are into speculative "science-fiction.":) Whatever the case, movies and books such as the Star Trek series have accommodated our minds to be able to embrace intelligent and conscious life apart from physical (material) bodies. These are similar to the bodies of the Elohim, which were able to travel through all the dangers of intergalactic space without being
harmed, and at incredible speeds.

Despite Yahweh's renegade attitudes, and his anti-humanitarianism (absorbed only in his own ego), it seems that the creation of the dreamworld was also the will of the One. She simply used Yahweh to do Her own will.

The "devil" (fear) is a "secret agent" for God (Love). In Revelation, he appears as a "seven-headed dragon." Since "seven"is the archetype of deep spirituality, I believe that Revelation's most secret and hidden message is that the "dragon" acts to awaken and even enlighten people. For often, people must be scared into enlightenment; and what could do this better than fear itself? So, "he" secretly works for God! Indeed, it is pointed out that, if there is only one Mind in all of creation, the
"satan" (originally a common noun) must be a "role" or "mask" of the One.

No comments: