This is from Son of Moses, in response to a challenge to come up with an alternative to the scientific narrative of evolution. I am trying to limit the length of postings that are visible, so to read the full text, click on "Read More!" below. - Kevin
In the Beginning. What? Why? Who knows?
Did it happen at all? Was it in the past, or is it happening only right now? Or is it merely a misperception, a misperceiving of the True Reality?
And if it exists, does it have any more meaning than a momentary white dot appearing and disappearing on a black cathode ray screen?
Who knows?
Indeed, what right have we to assume that we could ever hope to understand? Can a mere droplet of water understand the great Ocean?
And yet, suppose there is an original Reality, a Beginning; is it pure Consciousness, pure knowing, infinite, eternal, One without a second? Or what was it?
From That, in That, for its own reasons, or maybe beyond any concept of reason that our minds could entertain, came a Second, so that in it could appear a reflection of the Original One.
This appearance is a stepping down, a reduction. It constituted a split, for now there existed two, the Original and its ‘Matter’; or perhaps three, these two and the Reflection of the First in the Second. Did it all happen in the same instant?
Whether so or not, note that, in relation to the One, the second is the not-so-perfect; it is dependent, and timebound. In this less-Good lay the seed of evil.
But there was no one yet to dwell on the implications of this fact, and in what seemed a mere moment there was spread out an unimaginably vast heirarchy of beings. Consciousness fragmented into countless seemingly separate individuals, each partaking of the original Magic that fills every step.
But as the Cosmos filled out, a concern arose in the mind of the Creators. Will the outward Surge fragment so much that memory of the original freedom and bliss will be lost? Will the ever increasing density and finitude at the outer edge enter a rigid bondage, a state of endless misery? How may this mighty journey outwards, Consciousness running down through creation, be reversed?
Let us, therefore, make a new being, capable of spanning the whole array of the Cosmos, able to regenerate the great depletion, to convert lower energies back into higher. Let us raise a Transformer from the dust of earth, creating him in our own image.
We shall place him just there, in the earth, a little lower than the angels, having dominion over all creatures.
And the angels of the Lord brought forth from the dust a magnificent body, of intricate passages and pathways, evolved over long ages. Patiently, through the power of their attention, they moulded a receptacle for the soul of man.
Who knows how many experiments and trials were essayed in their quest to produce the ideal agency for the task to be performed? Who can tell how much work it required to bring about this marvel conceived in the Divine Mind prior to the first impulse of manifestation? What seems aeons to us is indeed but a second in the Cosmic Mind.
He thought and it was done.
And know that just as a few microscopic cells of our deep brain govern the entire metabolism of our magnificent bodies, yet nonetheless comprise only the merest fraction of the whole, so the race of man comprises an infinitely tiny proportion of the cosmos, yet plays this vital part as the end point of the whole creative pageant, the point of turning, the beginning of the journey upward and back.
And if you ask how such an apparently insignificant creature could be of such importance when we see him every day strutting his infinite foolishness on the globe, then know that this is just that, the age of foolishness, that there are much longer ages when his true stature is unmistakably evident, his mighty responsibility properly fulfilled.
Praise be to Him that was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be.
Monday, January 22, 2007
A Story of Creation
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
A droplet of water might well understand the whole ocean provided that said droplet knew it was of the same substance as the ocean.
It wouldn't necessarily know the full scope, breadth, strength and nature of the ocean but it's not divorced from it.
Blake knew this in his poem about a grain of sand.
It seems to me that there are some immediate logical problems in this.
Because you want to bring in sin and a Fall, you have to introduce imperfection ("the seed of Evil") as soon as there is creation. In other words, change in the Absolute. This is not, I think, in agreement with the Vedanta view that the change is just an appearance (which I suppose chimes well with the scientific view that change in state is just change in appearance ...). But I presume you are well aware of that.
It appears that God creates, and the first thing he creates is "the seed of Evil" - why would he? Is the evil really evil from God's point of view? Or is that just its appearance?
Then later on we suddenly have "Creators" - multiple Creators, but with a single "mind". I'm not sure at what point these appeared, or how, or why.
It appears to me (ie someone with no strong reason to believe in this idea, other than its merits) that your faith that there is evil in the creation begs the question of how it gets there.
Are the 'longer ages' of wisdom before, or after, the present time? Or both?
To anyone looking at himself, or his immediate surroundings or the world as a whole - it might seem that there is plenty of 'evil'. This could be perceived from the individual outwards rather than from an idea of original sin colouring perception.
How to explain that 'evil'? Every religion is concerned about this, its beginnings, its manifestations and what remedies are required.
Interestingly, all the major religions seem to be agreed, in principle, about the various manifestations of evil, e.g., stealing. This suggests that, in all societies and at all times, stealing is recognised to be a disruptive and abhorrent force. We are perhaps venturing into the realm of ethics here, rather than first principles, because, if there is no notion of property, then there can be no stealing, and we look then at 'taking more than you need' (greed).
Considering another evil - murder. Why is this an evil? Is it not because the act deprives an individual of that which he or she holds most dear - their life? And is there any religion (or any society) which does not condemn this or regard it as evil? Sometimes there is individual sacrifice of life (for which it is necessary to regard those so killed as 'not like us'). The principle still remains.
There are lesser evils - we use that phrase quite often - for which it may be possible to negotiate. But the big evils are remarkably the same everywhere.
We don't always believe this, thinking that to change the face of evil is to lessen it. Seems like a long time ago since Moses brought down the Ten Commandments to govern our disobedient lives.
So why is 'sin', the consequence of evil, called 'original'? Perhaps because it seems to be inherent. One can discuss this for a very long time, as to how it got there,
but the ways and means of recognising it (half the battle)may be more fruitful and achievable. Having recognised it, and then named it, there is, as philosophers may say, an imperative action.
In answer to some of the points raised:
1) The early advent of evil in creation.
The fact is that evil is undeniably here with us. How can it be explained? I cannot help thinking that to brush it aside with Vedantic sleight-of-hand, dismissing it as mere illusion is simply a cop-out; worse, in fact, since it is a particularly unpleasant form of hypocrisy. I say this because, as it seems to me, only if we are totally sure that we are entirely free of evil intent, and only if we are of such mettle that we can endure evil’s effects without inner or outer murmur have we the right so to write it off. Until then it is our responsibility to work for its diminishment wherever we encounter it, and this, inevitably, will mainly be within ourselves.
I personally believe that (whether we call it impurity, ignorance, or obstacles) evil, though temporary in relation to absolute reality, has to be faced up to, understood and dealt with. As they say, ‘You can’t go round it, only through it’.
2) Creators.
My account was, of necessity, truncated. In full it would have included the story of the emanation from the Original One of ‘World Guardians’ such as are spoken of in Manu, in Neo-Platonism, as Archangels in the Bible and in some form or other in all the major and minor traditions.
In studying such accounts, I have gained the strong impression that the administration of the concentric spheres of the universal scheme is not unlike, though of course on a much larger scale, that of a well-run human organization such as, dare I say it, our beloved School. But this should not surprise us if we take into account the fact that this human world is said to be a rather pale, imperfect reflection of the higher heavenly worlds. For example, Plato advises us in several places to look first to the heavenly pattern if we wish to construct a just system here on earth.
You might say this is primitive nonsense, but I have found the proofs which convince me of the veracity of such ideas in purely contemporary sources, principally in the outpourings of such mediums as Helen Shucman and Eva Pierrakos (Who she and she? Google and see) and also in the words of numerous NDE survivors of all ages and cultures, ancient and modern, including level-headed friends not prone to fantasising.
Why should I believe in such testimony? Having investigated their circumstances and lives, I do not see how they could possibly have invented the profound and far-reaching wisdom they speak or write. It is obvious to me that they were mediums of the wisdom of a higher world than this, a world or worlds populated by persons, yes persons, solicitous of our welfare, advance and true edification.
Such evidence, if accepted, makes the project of contemporary science look clumsy, provincial, slow, halting and, if it keeps to its present paradigm, ultimately doomed to fail. It is rather as though it was trying to re-invent the wheel with its hands tied behind its back (yes, he’s definitely raving now).
3) Previous or future ages of wisdom.
In spite of our recent discussions, I do not pretend to know which is true, the yuga theory or the New Age theory. Maybe they are both valid in that, although we obviously live in an age of ignorance and widespread suffering, the hope and vision of a glorious future is present in both theories, though with a somewhat longer wait in the former.
4) Laura’s discussion of evil.
I am inclined to understand evil as it manifests in the will of human beings as an intent to cause, and the act of causing, pain, physical and mental, to others. Thus an act is evil if it causes unjustified pain. The adjective ‘unjustified’ looks after situations where pain and suffering result from beneficial intent guided by wisdom (but not by misguided ideas, as I have seen and taken part in, i.e. the sort of thing Kevin was instancing a few days ago).
All this is demonstrated in the ‘life-review’ that takes place at death. This is when the whole of our life flashes before us and we feel as if the pain, physical and emotional, that our speech and acts have inflicted on those around us is happening to ourself. This, I believe, has given rise to legends of a ‘judgement’ but is in reality purely the action of the true conscience of the inner Self, usually leading to a strong desire to come back and make good.
OK, thanks for those various responses and clarifications. Will get back to you when I've had time to consider ...
I suppose that a (friendly) skeptic would say that since these mediums are confirming things that have been said in many places and times, then perhaps they are just expressing the contents of their own subconscious understanding of a certain tradition?
In the Brihadaranyaka, Yajnyavalkya has to prove that he knows what has been gleaned from revelatory sources (usually gandharvas); nonetheless his own knowledge does not come from that source, but from reason and yogic discipline. In that sense, I would say that your belief-system is 'primitive', which is why I prefer not to follow it.
I would like to take up at some point your various swipes at the Vedanta. Although you assert that my perspective is a sanitized Western one, I think it is fundamental to the Vedanta that all of the Gods, gandharvas etc etc are only real "at a level". This is in the Upanishads from the start. We can all reach self-realization without them, because we are the Atman.
Anyway, I don't dispute your right to be convinced by these "proofs"; so long as you don't expect me to be!
Dear Kevin,
I follow your drift and, without in any way trying to diminish your ideas, I would be grateful to know in what way you are not an 'advaitic atheist'.
I did not say Vedantic, since Vedanta, as you doubtless know, is a broad church embracing several very theistic approaches.
Equally, I do not say agnostic, since I question the validity of this word to designate someone for whom the existence of a divine world plays no part in their life, beliefs or worldview.
I repeat, I am not asking this question in any spirit of dissention or finger-pointing, but only in a genuine and well-meaning effort to understand where you are coming from.
Son of Moses
I have to repeat that I am not asking you to share my beliefs (or, as you would portray it, my lack of any). All I am asking is that you do not require me to share yours. You appear to find this insulting or challenging, to judge by the repeated name-calling.
The pattern seems to be that I ask questions about your ideas, and in response you make comments about me. Recently you suggested that you might be playing to the gallery somewhat in doing this, but I would question the validity of this. There is a distinction between arguing to win and arguing to discover the truth, and sometimes (not always) you appear to be indulging in the former.
I'm not going to dignify your question with a response, but I would like to say that one of my purposes on this blog is to create a space where people are allowed to air different views, where it is not necessary to adhere to a certain doctrine to be 'in the club'. Sometimes I do speak up for voices that are little heard in the School - as for example my advocacy of science, which is not really very close to my heart but which I think suffers from a great deal of prejudice in these circles - but on the whole I would rather that people feel free to think and speak philosophically without worrying about the 'right' point of view or answer.
We are supposed to be a school of philosophy, not a religion. To me, with respect to the religions, there is an important difference. His Holiness said the religions of the world were like immovable mountains, and he spoke of a religion of the self that might be like a river flowing around and between them. That religion, in my view, is still there to be discovered.
Dear Kevin,
Peace.
I thought I had made it clear that my question was NOT meant to be abusive in any way. It came from a genuine desire to understand where you are coming from. I could accuse you of going into the defensive in order to avoid answering, but I think you are just being a little too sensitive. If you don’t want to give an answer, so be it.
I am certainly not expecting you to share my beliefs, only hoping that you, and others, might give an honest and truthful response. For mysterious reasons, I think, there is not a great amount of free discussion in the school. I was hoping that this forum might begin to supply the lack.
I sometimes think that you assume me to represent all that you dislike about ‘School’ conservatism, when in fact I regard myself a complete heretic and completely unrepresentative of School views.
Nor do I follow any conventional religion, so it would be interesting to know what you are accusing me of in your last paragraph.
As for my name-calling, this is again, I submit, a matter of over-sensitivity on your part. I think perhaps you have little idea how sharp and arrogant your own magisterial put-downs sometimes seem, and not just to me. I accept, however, that you don’t really mean it that way.
Perhaps we both have something to learn about the developing art of online discussion.
I think that one of the great problems with our Christian society, of which the School is very much a part, is that one's beliefs are thought to be a measure of one's worth or even ultimate spiritual destiny (ie heaven or hell). That is deep in our culture.
For that reason, I fail to see how you can regard your reference to me as
someone for whom the existence of a divine world plays no part in their life, beliefs or worldview.
as in any way neutral or non-judgemental, however couched in friendly language and disclaimers. I may be being sensitive here, but it feels to me like "so when did you stop beating your wife?"
All I want to say about my beliefs is that I would be happy to associate myself with Yajnyavalkya, Socrates or Confucius - in the words of the latter, I would prefer to pay the gods my respect and keep my distance.
If I am sharp myself, it is not intended to be against anyone, but against views that are deeply entrenched. Bear in mind that this blog is the first time, to my knowledge, that anyone has been publicly willing to speak out and question things. There are many people who regard themsleves as heretics, but so far as I can see they usually do it quietly out of the corners of their mouths. It is not easy to be the first. Someone wrote to me last week to say that they have found it impossible to take part in this forum because although they have things to say, it is just too difficult to articulate them publicly. People live in fear of speaking out, and I think it's understandable (perhaps not excusable) if some of that translates into defensiveness.
I don't regard you as representative of School orthodoxy, and I know that your views are your own, but the tactics can feel much like what one usually gets from senior figures in School. The use of personal comments from 'the chair' is a well-practiced, if regrettable feature of the organization. If one can create an angry or emotional response in another, that is seen as proving that they are weak and ahankaric.
I may be sensitive and defensive from time to time, but I do not believe that I goad anyone into making a fool of themselves, or adopt pseudo-still "School Cool" to establish my own superiority.
Maybe I am wrong ... perhaps you or others will have something to say on this?
Dear Kevin,
I am sure that neither of us wishes to extend this less than harmonious exchange any further, but there are a few things I feel I must briefly say in order to explain and possibly to defuse, any misunderstanding.
First of all, my use of the word divine in the sentence about which you complain refers only to the realm of heaven and the divinities, and includes the divine Law and possibly most scriptures.
My impression is that you are happy to do without this realm, preferring the Supreme Self as a single and sufficient explanation and goal. Such an approach is pretty standard in the School, even orthodox. Having said this, perhaps you will see that I was not name-calling but only trying to gauge the extent of your allegiances for purposes of more focused discussion.
I entirely applaud and respect your move in establishing this blog and have high hopes of it. However, I cannot understand why you continue to tar me with the ‘senior figures in the School’ brush. Is this not name-calling?
I have never personally tutored you, so it seems as if, for your own reasons, you wish to use me as some kind of straw man upon whom to relieve yourself of long pent-up emotions. I am happy to continue in that function if it contents you but would also like to continue discussion on the important issues raised in this blog, however clumsy my efforts at constructive dialogue obviously are.
I am particularly keen to hear more of your talk last week.
Son of Moses
Maybe some of the issues in the School arise because there is generally poor communication between younger and older people.
I don't think it is quite fair to pathologise me as someone who requires a straw man to vent his frustrations, however. Could it be that you are doing exactly the same?
What I am finding is that sometimes when I open up a subject for discussion, you will jump on me as an disciple of Dawkins, a stooge of Stalin, or a crony of Tony. Straw-Man-A-Rama! Although this is usually entertaining, I find it hard to see where it is going to lead.
I do appreciate your continued participation in this blog, though. One thing that the 'Prominent Members' (ahem!) never do is engage in equal discussion.
Good: then let's continue to talk and I'll try to behave.
OK thanks. It's good to talk.
Kevin said:
In the Brihadaranyaka, Yajnyavalkya has to prove that he knows what has been gleaned from revelatory sources (usually gandharvas)
Do you have a reference for this please? I guess I'm wondering whether there is a difference between:
- going through and beyond the revelatory sources and
- prematurely dismissing them
About the medium/psychic thing - I went to a talk many years ago by a lady who claimed to have had a near death experience. I don't remember too much about what she said but she had great presence and warmth about her and not at all 'dreamy' like some new-agers I have met. Her gaze was really confirming, like she was transmitting the knowledge that there really never was any need to worry about anything.
The conversation between Y and the pandits is the main section of the Brihad - I don't have it to hand but I think it's part III. I think there are at least two questions from people who have witnessed possession and received knowledge in that way. It's actually a very dramatic and readable story.
I would hope that I am not dismissing anything out of hand. I am aware of there being this kind of access to knowledge, and I know personally what it feels like from some experiences I have had, but it doesn't appear to me to be essential. There is a danger of getting distracted by this kind of thing, or of getting confused between what one is really picking up and what is just a projection, and I would on the whole prefer the slower and more certain route of study, work and reason.
EG probably there is something to astrology, I admit, but since it is not reliably good at predicting anything, why expend a lot of effort on it? Someone I know sold his house on the basis that the head School astrologer said there was a crash coming ... house prices doubled before he bought again. I asked him whether his belief in astrology was changed in any way by this experience, and he said it wasn't. So far as I am aware there was no offer by the astrologer to pay the difference.
At about the same time (2000 I think), someone in School mentioned to me this prospect of a worldwide crash and depression. I said to them that I was more concerned about a terrorist attack on a major city, and that I couldn't understand why nobody ever talked about that prospect. The following September, of course, it happened.
I would like to be a member of an organization that is spiritual, but not superstitious. At the moment, I think there is a lot of superstition (unexamined opinion based on hearsay), and I think it is a great shame because we could be employing our energies usefully.
Socrates' attitude to the Homeric gods is 'well, if they did/said that, they can't be the real gods'. In other words, he has a high respect for the divine as that which is reasonable that he doesn't accept unreasonable old stories.
And before anyone says, he does respect myth, but he's just careful about which myths he propagates.
Yes, this sort of unexamined prediction can be disastrous. I was begged by a friend (when I sold my flat at the end of 1998)not to buy again until prices crashed as they undoubtedly would at the millennium.
Prices undoubtedly did not. Fortunately, I gave no credence to this 'good advice'(very well meant). It's rather like the stock-market; even the best prognisticators are working with imperfect knowledge - the future.
In these circumstances the greater wisdom is to acknowledge that you don't know, and neither does anyone else. That way it may be possible to steer clear of Fear and Greed.
On the other hand a heightened state may give insights and knowledge which are unusual but supportive of the slow and steady approach.
We've all had times, I suspect, of this.
Once, at Stanhill, during the summer I listened to a heavenly choir at 4p.m. on the other side of the croquet lawn. No one else could hear it.
I spoke about this to my checker and she confirmed that people quite often heard voices or other phenomena at Stanhill. She advised me not to give it further attention. Not being Joan of Arc, I took the advice.
But you don't forget these intimations of immortality.
I'm with you all the way there, Laura!
Post a Comment