Tuesday, April 27, 2010

I woke up this morning and.....no God.

After viewing a documentary about famed Science Fiction guru Harlan Ellison last night, I awoke this morning with an absolute certainty in the non-existence of God. I experienced the exact same perspective after watching Bill Maher's film "Religulous". And when I mean "no God", understand that I am not referring to agnosticism. I mean zilcho, nada, nadir, NO-THING. Now, as a recovering addict, understand that this kind of spiritual diaspora can be rather enervating. In fact, in can be downright lethal. I have based the numinous nature of my sobriety on a personal relationship with a Higher Power of my own understanding, whatever that may be. So far, at least up to this morning, that has been a fait accompli. Without reservation, I have devoted myself to the admonition that "either God is everything, or he is nothing". That last unequivocal statement may, in fact, be more than meets the eye. It may, in fact, be a Zen Koan, not an admonition at all.

Follow me here: By limiting me to a black or white-"Lady or the Tiger"-approach to God, having to chose one door to live and the either to die, I experienced an epiphany,an "A HA" moment. The floor that dropped out from under me after watching these two rather brilliant but sycophantic atheists was actually the undergirding foundation of a new psychodynamic interpretation/revelation or postulation of a "God" that had fallen off the shelf, as it were. A three dimensional/poly dimensional dual consciousness which catapulted my "I" into a spiral quantum mechanical world, a world in which events observed occupied the same "space", which can be interpreted as being BOTH and NEITHER simultaneously depending on who is the "observer" of the event. To put it more succinctly, is it at all possible that God is AND is not? By Jove, I think he's got it.

Of course, this is not a new concept. Non dual consciousness has been the basis of the Hindu school of Vedanta for centuries (Advaita). It lies at the root of Taoist thought, of Zen Buddhism, and of the teachings of such avathars as Gautama Buddha, Lao Tze, most it not all of the Rinpoche's, and the more modern equivalents such as Krishnamurti, Sri Auribindo, Ramakrishna, and in the west Allan Watts and, more recently, Eckhart Tolle. Only those from a stringent Judeo/Christian/Islamist paradigm rigidify themselves under this either/or phenomenon. I thank them for this too strict a viewpoint. It has allowed me to surrender to a possibility beyond the narrow confines of my lovely Cartesian weltanschaung.
Oh, by the way, I think this is what LOST is about.


Blogger Michael Pascoe said...

I see God as the almighty creator. Not a person as we know it. Just a being that keeps order. Most of my problems with God is shared my most. We think He (I say He because it's easier) is a wish granter. God does not answer wishes. His main job is to create life and keep order.

Now many may think there is no order. As we see it no, but you try to keep an entire body running with it's neurosystems and networks. Then try to keep all of this running properly with the host feeding crap into it. No wonder there is sickness.

And some of this crap is not just food. You have the air we breath, the chemicals we come into contact with. Now let's see if you can do a better job.

God is everything. It's both beautiful and ugly at the same time. And as perfect as can be. It's man that has fucked it up.

7:52 PM  
Blogger LMS said...

Quite the revelation, m'dear. I love the aetheists because their vehement annihilation of the God concept cannot exist without (albeit un-admitted to by them) an equally vehement acknowledgement of the existence of such a being. According to Abrahamic teaching, their resistance only serves to strengthen their own belief in such a being. Funny, no? Spun out, it's rather amusing to imagine them being chased, 24-7, by an ever increasing "smoke-monster" of their own creation, whose existence would cause them to scream in horror. Conversely, only a true believer can acknowledge the simultaneous IS / IS NOT-ness of that which is all things.
- Madame Blahvatsky

8:20 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home