"The more God is in all things, the more He is outside them. The more He is within, the more without."
It is taught that God is both totally transcendent and totally immanent. If I could skirt around the God word here, it is not unreasonable to say that if I am genuinely to enter into the necessary process of "knowing oneself", then I need to take on the mantle of divinity, in other words to reach out far beyond what has been called the higher Self. Only then can I enter the realm of the ego, and truly know it, without becoming in any way attached to it, thus freeing myself from its dominion. When I talk about the ego here, I am referring not only to my conscious personality; its traits negative and positive; its thoughts, emotions and senses, but also to its natural tendency to form attachments. Thus, if I am 'unclean' I do not know myself; if I cannot come clean, I can never know myself.
To achieve the ultimate state of spiritual cleanliness, or to become totally transcendent, does not seem to me to require a single, giant step. The work that needs to be done is a process of step-taking, each step raising myself to ever 'higher' levels. The higher I am able to go, the more deeply I can immerse myself in the process of "knowing myself" without risking attachment. The more transcendent the Self becomes, the more immanent it becomes. It may well follow that the more I know my lower self, and unblock the inner, lower pathways, the more I can consciously experience my higher Self.
Hi Tom
ReplyDeleteI am sure the affinity to the One which is the subject of your post and the removal of attachments leads to enlightenment. But what is less clear to me is the divide (if indeed it exists at all) between what comes afterwards as moral action and that which conceivably is always motivated by self-interest or possibly at least in our best interest. Could it not be true then God or the ONE makes it necessary that acting morally, in the end maximizes one’s self-interest? , although this is not always apparent and may even be puzzling at times. If that be the case, and I suspect it is true, than an evolution of the rational ethical ego is in tandem and becomes a product of the higher self. In that respect could it be that virtue will always continue to have a pivotal role as an expression or discernment from the ONE. Otherwise the ONE does not have a role to play, and in dropping that belief, then you are left in a vacuum? So in the end maybe the shedding of attachments is a natural way forward in a series of steps we take forward in our existence as you have concluded. Best wishes
It may be that removal of attachments, or the achieving of detachment, produces enlightenment, but I am not sure that that is the point of the exercise. When the ego is stripped totally of its illusions as to its nature, it becomes possible to achieve mystical union with God, or the One. That, it seems to me, is the ultimate purpose of following the injunction to "know thyself."
DeleteWhatever actions come about after that mystical union comes into being, is beyond my experience. However, it does not seem to me that morality comes into the frame. Mystical union can also be said to be the ultimate state of love, a state of being that exists inclusive of what is seen from a disconnected standpoint as God and the human being. Morality becomes unnecessary when love is the focus of being, when the apparently disparate parts of the self are joined as one.
Far from the state in which the One has no role to play, we - God and Man - evolve into a Beingness that is, or is heading towards, something altogether new. The difficulty with the whole evolutionary process is that detachment, or the ridding ourselves of attachments, seems to be a quite unnatural process, because along the way, something willingly has to die.
Hi Tom
ReplyDeleteYou mention that whatever actions come about after that mystical union comes into being, is beyond my experience. But I suggest this might be a matter of an enhanced auto pilot, so that any state of enhanced being in turn can conceivably bring with it such things as enhanced relationships and or a better understanding of ourselves and so on. I agree that the question of morality might not, on first considering the matter, come into the frame, but let me put it this way. Imagine a pianist, on reflection, listening to a prior recording of a piece played and picking out a few odd notes which were corrected next time the piece is played, without having to think about it, or even becoming aware of it……maybe it is just a feeling that comes over the listener that something was not quite right at one point which is then improved upon during the next recital.
The mystical union you mention, to be the ultimate state of love, then can have relevance to our continued state of being, which will be different for each of us which in turn will be influenced to some degree by our culture and background, which does not mean it is any less pure in its application. Best wishes
Hi Lindsay; On reading your second comment, I sense that there is little between us to disagree about. Lying behind the whole process of consciousness development leading to mystical union, is the step-by-step approach. Development of the transcendent aids that of the immanent; advances in the one promotes advances in the other. None of any of this takes place in a consciousness or cultural vacuum, and maybe that is why I find it all so very exciting.
Delete"... the more I know my lower self, and unblock the inner, lower pathways, the more I can consciously experience my higher Self." Tom, this is so close to the poetic form of haiku, its central device of ampliative induction, that I thought I'd mention it. To focus on a small event and allow it to expand into something general and universal is a feature of thought --part of the language the mind uses, an art form. Might transcendence exploit a similar mechanism?
ReplyDeleteHullo Geo; I must confess my ignorance of haiku and am, therefore, unaware of its process of ampliative induction. This has tweaked my interest, particularly as, in my career in science, it was the opposite process that was often employed - the moving from the general to the particular. With that in mind, I would say that transcendence could well exploit a similar mechanism.
DeleteI have always had too great a tendency to 'get up into my head', as the saying goes. Of late I have tried to rely more on my intuition than on my intellect. To find, therefore, that my direction of travel is supported and bolstered by other approaches is a source of comfort and encouragement for me.
Sorry RW, somehow your comment was deleted. I have retrieved a copy from my gmail inbox as follows:-
ReplyDeleteHmmm, this is fascinating. I was also thinking of Haiku, like Geo. I've never thought of it as a mechanism, though. To go deeply into a sliver of moment. There is a transcendence there at times, I feel.
My reply:-
Hullo RW; I also found Geo's idea fascinating. As I said to that earlier comment, I am ignorant of Haiku but the implanting of that idea before my morning's meditation, let fly a small deluge of possible understanding.
Something is in the wind, because of late I have felt so satisfied and joyous inside, and it isn't only because it's spring or that Lucy and I are off to Paris to celebrate out wedding (20th.) anniversary.
Oh, Happy Anniversary to you both! Bon Voyage!! ♪ ♫
ReplyDeletesusan has left a new comment on your post "Unblocking the Pathways":
ReplyDeleteAmidst myriad difficulties the toughest one is 'attachments'. I can detach from my opinions; I understand my beliefs may be subject to debate; I accept that reality may not be concrete. Still, I'm attached to those I love and can't imagine giving up that aspect of my life. Over the years I've often wondered if I've never understood the concept of giving up attachments.
Happy Anniversary ♡
Susan; I am having difficulties with my comment system (See earlier RW's comment). I must be brief. My understanding of giving up attachments to ones that we love does not mean that we need to withdraw our love from them - at least not necessarily. Detachment with love is the key when our spiritual integrity is being compromised. But if it is not possible to detach with love, then detach by any means possible. Under normal, spiritually healthy conditions, this does not arise.
DeleteSorry you're having comment problems, Tom.
DeleteThanks for your kind and understanding response. Remaining attached to an unhealthy relationship isn't helpful to either party, but love for a few that allows us to understand even a little of the greater love is good. Too simple, perhaps, but may be close enough. :)
I have always though the way through was beneath, washing feet, seeping down, understanding, growing compassion. Descending into hell, without an aspiration, accepting each loss as permanent. Only by wholly believing in the loss is there any chance to comprehend growth. Become the root, the spore, the lost river beneath the land.
ReplyDeletethought
ReplyDeleteZhoen; That is certainly how it all begins, and often needs to be visited again and again. But a descent into a valley also implies an ascent of a mountain. The lower the descent, the higher the ascent. These seems to have been a truth not recognised by our puritan forbears, and many have suffered as a result.
Delete