Again today, I think I’m writing from a philosophical point of view. The only preface I wish to give is that I am writing for myself right now. I’m not writing for any other purpose. I am alone now. Nobody is engaging me in communication. That is almost always the case with my blogs. I am just bouncing ideas around in my head.
It is fun to think about these questions? Which ones?
There are ten questions in particular that seems to be the focus of maybe all philosophical thinking throughout the centuries. Philosophical thought, defined by it’s character rather than it’s formal description is also central to much of the scriptures from many religions.
These are those questions.
What is the nature of the universe?
What is man’s place in the universe?
What is good and what is evil?
What is the nature of God?
What is fate and what is free will?
What is soul and what is immorality?
What is the order of man and state?
What is education?
What is mind and matter?
What is ideas and what is thinking?
I am far from knowing the answers to these. I already know that all my efforts are without vain because I hold this simple truth in my experience; you cannot only truly think about life (existence), you can only live it.
All thinking about life is in vain. The more I think, the farther away I go from divinity. So I have to strike a balance. If I don’t strike a balance, I think I’ll go crazy.
Understand what I’m trying to say is that the function of thought cannot comprehend the whole because it is only a part of the whole. Thinking is just thoughts — but it is far away from the source of life. But we are thinking all the time. It seems constant — and I doubt you can remember an experience that was completely void of thoughts. There is a space between thinking about the divine and being close to the divine.
This reminds me of something I read by G. Gurdjieff.
“Knowledge is one thing, understanding is another. Knowledge by itslef does not give understanding. Nor is understanding increased by an increase of knowledge alone. Understanding depends on the relation of knowledge to being. Understanding is the resultant of knowledge and being. And knowledge and being must not diverge too far, otherwise understanding will prove to be far removed from either. Understanding grows only with the growth of being.”
I am just talking about these things. I have yet to understand these implications.
When I feel close to divinity, it is in a space of less thought. I’ve read from many authors about the comparison of mind consciousness to a mirrors. In my understanding; dirt and blemishes on the mirror is like thinking and the construction of ‘self’ on your empty reflective consciousness. A perfect mirror reflects the truth. It can’t do anything else. If a mirror reflect anything else except that which it is pointed at, it is somehow distorted.
See how perfect children are. They are the most impressionable things, and they are born being that way. Human infants do in fact have a very basic and primitive sense of self. Studies have shown that infants can at least differentiate between self and non-self touch. It has been debated and studies have mapped the stages of ego developement in children. The phenomenon of the construction of ego is not so fascinating in adults. We don’t need to look hard to see it happening. It happens all the time everywhere, and it isn’t so subtle to see as it is in a child.
It is why Jesus said, “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”
In my opinion, The Christian Bible could be complete with this passage alone. There’s many scriptures out there and it must take a sharp mind to understand their messages. Religious teachings and scriptures are so highly encrypted to the modern mind. The minds of men thousands of years ago were of different understanding. Symbolism may be have been the greatest form of expressions for men thousands of years ago and so when we read the scriptures, we will lose the meaning — they are deeply symbolic.
Even symbolism has a comparative standard. For symbolism of the past, we are the comparative standard. What we consider as being symbolic is just as well pragmatic and scientific for the minds in which that symbolism was conceived. I fantasize about a future where the current conception of the Christian God is only novelty and understood as a conception of the past. I hope we move past the current conception of God — it is ugly and untruthful. Consciousness should evolve to a point where we are not looking at God for answers, we are just looking within.
The meaning is encoded in the essence of the passage. It is not such a bad thing if you cannot understand something. But it is more heinous to misunderstand. Your misunderstanding becomes your belief. Your belief will grow roots deep into the soil and then it is so hard to crack you open to the mysterious world of the divine.
Have you read the Heart Sutras? The philosophical implications of the Sutras are very deep. You cannot receive the message just by reading it. At first the Sutras will be very elementary — they will seem to be making very juvenile, ambiguous and plain statements. You will have to read a commentary on the Heart Sutras. Commentaries are meant to give you the right context to understand. People read commentaries on many scriptures because their mind has to much garbage to understand what it is really saying — so somebody has to give you the context. Somebody has to give commentary for you to understand — they are bridging the gap between your current understanding, and that which you are trying to understand.
It is the same way thing with the Gita. There are so many commentaries on the Gita, and they are all quite different. Krishna, the centerpiece of the Gita, was such an expansive and multi-dimensional being that it is impossible for any commentary to include a commentary of Krishna’s entire message. Instead, you will find many different commentaries, which truly just reflect the virtues of the man talking about it. Gandhi was most infamous for them. He was a man of rare quality and great virtue, but even Gandhi couldn’t reconcile himself with some of the implications of the philosophy of Krishna — who is believed to be the incarnation of God. It is good to read a commentary on the Gita. No matter who you read it by, you are likely to benefit since the Gita is arguably one of the most inclusive books on philosophy and actions. It is believed by many people that Krishna spoke the most philisophical words in all time to his friend Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita. The entire scripture is encrypted with philosophical implications, and it you try to read and understand Krishna’s words verbatim, it will take you a long time to finish the book. I’ve not finished the Gita — it’s not an easy book to read.
Jesus’s message in the bible is different.
It is simple and plain message which Jesus spoke. That is how Jesus was and that is the beauty of his teachings. He spoke to people and told them to be loving. He told them to by like children. It is my opinion that Jesus is heavily understood by the Christians. In fact, much of traditional Christian practice may be far from the message of Jesus. Christ was not a Christian, he was a Jew! And he was not trying to create the order of Christianity. People did that on their own after he was gone, and I don’t think he would have approved.
The same applies the Gautama Buddha. He was not a Buddhist. Traditionally, Gautama was a Hindu. He was born into Brahmanism and he proceeded the formal religion of Buddhism by almost 500 years. I’m referring to ‘formal’ by the point at which his teachings were recorded. If you know about Gautama, you know it’ll be much easier to say the things that Buddha wasn’t than the thing which he was. Certainly we can say that he was not a Buddhist.
Krishna certainly wasn’t Hindu, that should be a basic understanding about his scripture.
I am talking about scriptures because they have relevance — but that is the extent! They only have relevance. People who are living so naturally close to the source of creation can see the lines running parallel between your experience and that of Buddha, Jesus, or Krishna. Non-religious people read the scriptures. They are drawing the parallels themselves.
Don’t begin drawing parallel between you and them. You don’t need to depend on the scriptures. The scriptures are somebody else’s life. You live your life and write your own scripture! The bible is regarded as so good that it is Holy. Have you read it? There’s many stories of people doing and un-holy un-virtuous things. That’s not up for debate, you can read it and see. There is death, adultery, deceit, but the bible is still regarded as the most wholesome book. Why do you think your life is any different? The book of your life is occupied by ‘ugly’ parts, but it is still your scripture — it is still your holy book.
Stop trying to be good and avoid being bad. Stop looking up and asking God for things. Just live your life close to the source. That is my message tonight.
Edit: This here is for the reader: I apologize for not editing this blog. It is very ‘messy’ by formal writing standards.