Okay, so you’ve had a breakthrough.
For a moment, or a few minutes, or even a few hours (if you have great stamina), you have held the entire Universe with complete acceptance, just as it is, and just as it is not.
You have experienced the endorphin rush associated with escaping the limitations of your conscious mind, and it was good.
So why are you not dwelling permanently in that place?
If the world of pure spirit and universal perspective and unconditional love is so darned fabulous, why do we keep snapping back to this material beingness? And why do we relate to the transcending of our self-imposed boundaries with something which is suspiciously like fear?
And the next poser – since we have unlimited POWER in that form, and can edit the Universe to our own satisfaction with a mere thought, why would we voluntarily return to our physical form to be governed by frustrating material limitations?
Now, I think part of the answer lies in why we created materiality in the first place. Given that we don’t have great access to our memory of that pre-material decision-making process, this is necessarily speculative. But you can test it on your own experience of transcendence, and see for yourself if it resonates.
If there is no material Universe, then there is no separation.
Separation of what?
Aha … long have we operated from “separate bad, connected/united/merged good”. But what is separate? And from what does it hold itself separate? And why?
Given that everything has a purpose, even separateness, what could be the Divine purpose of separateness?
Let’s suppose for a moment that there is no separateness. We say “we are all one”, but do we really like that idea? How many people, even for a split second, wonder if life as part of The Borg might be better than life as individuals? Aren’t “hive minds” the ultimate scary demonic enemy in all the science fiction stories? And every day, we view portrayals of the loss of our individual will as the ultimate evil.
Why are we so adamantly tied to our individualness, when we also believe that “separate is bad, united is good”?
If there is no separateness, there is no “I”, no “you”, and no “they”. All things, all experiences, all perspectives, all times, all places, all occur at once, complete, with nowhere to get to and nowhere to be coming from.
This is the experience of pure spirituality, untainted by material limitation.
In the face of this experience, the individual, lacking limitations or boundaries, expands to encompass all of Everything. In being Everything in general, one becomes Nothing in particular. This is the “death” of the individual awareness.
And we resist this.
With good reason.
Let’s suppose that Awareness (Consciousness, God, Brahma, etc) is existing, being Everything at once, and Nothing in particular. How can Awareness experience itself, when it is both Everything and Nothing, and there is no not-Awareness with which to compare and contrast?
In order to truly experience any aspect of itself, Awareness must distinguish the is-that-aspect of itself from the not-that-aspect of itself.
Then, Awareness must experience the similarities and differences between that-aspect and not-that-aspect of itself. The more finely divided that aspects and not-aspects, the richer the comparison and contrast, and the greater the understanding and appreciation Awareness/Everything/God can gain of Awareness/Everything/God itself.
As a possibility, consider that the best way for Awareness to accomplish the dividing is for Awareness to create many, many points of view, with each point of view doing its own dividing of Everything into This and not-This, That and not-That, and so on.
Now, for this to work, each point of view has to maintain its OWN existence as a separate point of view. This means that the key thing for any point of view to distinguish is “me” from “not-me”. The design of a point of view is that, first and foremost, it maintains its own existence as a separate point of view.
A really great way to maintain separateness as a point of view is to create space and time, and locate oneself at a position within space and time. Resist the “not me” of every other point of space/time/thought/opinion, and be attached to the “me” of the chosen point of view (space/time/thought/opinion).
Resistance and attachment cause persistence.
But if our purpose is to remain separate, then why do we struggle so hard to reunite?
Because resisting separateness causes persistence of separateness. Attachment to transcendence causes persistence of materiality. Only in the absence of resistance and attachment can one truly be free of material limitations.
The thing is, that when one is truly free of resistance and attachment, one is also free of judgement, values, thoughts, emotions, opinions, even preferences. Anything is possible, and anything is OK. One accepts and loves the psychopath, the child abuser, the war criminal, in exactly the same way as the innocent babe in arms or the greatest saintly leader of all time.
While this is in one sense Divine Love, it’s kind of creepy as an experience when you’re a human being, to entertain being OK with the actions of the “evil”, “misguided”, AKA “not me” parts of the human race.
Part of acceptance, I think, is to accept that as human beings we have preferences, opinions, emotions, and thoughts.
When one practises transcendence, there is a temptation to take the things that were previously “me” (those thoughts, emotions, etc), and make them “not me”, and then try to resist and eradicate them.
But actually, one can experience Love more fully inside the human being experience, because of the contrast with not-Love which is only available to human beings in material form.
Certain emotional experiences are enjoyable, even some emotions which are considered “bad”, such as grief, if experienced willingly and whole-heartedly (with little resistance). Since we have chosen a human experience, and we are in no hurry to end the human experience, we may as well fully enjoy all the aspects of the human experience.
Including being separate.
And striving for communion.
And resisting it at the same time.
|2005. 04. 26.