While exercising earlier, I arrived at several conclusions, and perhaps these conclusions are springboards for even more complicated levels of reality.

Allow me to preface this by saying that I recently discovered a few things: a statement that I deserve happiness and fulfillment (and that everyone deserves such) causes a boost and a swelling in my otherwise typically damaged second chakra. This means that a key to healing this chakra has to do with allotting happiness and fulfillment for one’s self, perhaps even on an ego level.

Happiness and fulfillment are not the same, as one implies fullness or completeness and the other does not. The question is whether or not it’s perfectly possible to experience each independent of the other.

My experience is that an empty happiness is possible; one can be happy without the happiness having any kind of meaningfulness to it. Fulfillment seems to bring about what I would call “deep” or “subtle” happiness, perhaps more of a sense of contentment because one feels complete or whole.

Moving on. The striving for meaning relates to something I’ve questioned and mulled over dealing with the notion of something greater than us and independent of us endowing us with things such as meaning and ethics.

I read a long debate between some Catholics, non-Catholic Christians, and atheists on an apologetics blog recently; I took something like two days to actually read through the whole set of debates that were going on.

The essential notion is this: if a god or gods don’t exist in some capacity, then everything boils down to relativism or utilitarianism. The atheists attempted to argue back, but on this particular point, the notion of appealing to an objective set of ethics, they were completely and utterly lost; the only real answer that can be given at this point is that everything boils down to one’s subjective experience.

One could argue that meaning, ethics, and such things can only be given by something external to one’s self that is also greater than one’s self. Of course, the question here is: why would the existence of a god who gives such things imply that they have any more meaning at all? It’s strange to say that god’s existence somehow validates ethics, meaning, and so on.

And the point that the atheists and non-crazy Catholics could argue is that the assent given to the Catholic Faith, for instance, is a subjective assent- and the crazy Catholic arguing on the site couldn’t grasp that his subjective assent to the Faith was just as subjective as an atheist’s worldview.

Also, as I pointed out early on in my own theological adventures, arguing that a god exists or proving that a god exists is only one step in the process; the next argument, of course, is to prove the god in question is the “Christian” version of god exactly, yet the crazy Catholic didn’t even bother to go there.

That’s fine, though: the debate was forced to stay on topic for the most part, and this wasn’t a question that proposed or debated.

So, to break down what’s going on here, the need for something “greater than one’s self” is how we create meaning in life. Our ego, in other words, the very mechanism separating us from God, is what creates the contrast of experiencing meaningfulness in the universe.

I’m reminded both of the Hindu saying, “I don’t want to be the sugar; I want to EAT the sugar!” and the Sufi saying, “I want union, but He wants separation; thus, I leave what I want behind so that His wish comes true.”

So perhaps, then, the existence of the ego isn’t quite as big of a tragedy as we’ve thought it to be; perhaps the ego is meant to exist and be exhausted with the ultimate meaning, and then, and only then, can theosis occur. Only when God has been grasped by the ego’s experience as an infinite meaning can it be dissolved in a blissful moment of awe and triumph.

One might say that no god is necessary for this as society is greater than the individual. While this point may be the reference some use initially, society is ultimately a collection of subjectivities, and in a way, society is NOT “other” to one’s self.

A crude example that will be emblazoned in your mind from now on is that a little piece of shit can be compared to a big piece of shit, but they aren’t of a different substance; they’re the same shit, only one is “more” and “bigger.”

Thus, when making this statement, God’s being “bigger” than us is not enough; our substance must in SOME way vary from His own, for if it does not, then God is simply some variation of Man, and that’s not the case.

This isn’t to imply or suggest that the technicalities of, say, our soul ultimately being a spark of God can’t be dealt with or looked at, and maybe one might say that in the ultimate sense, we are not different than God, that God is NOT so other.

In this instance, I would argue that the mind’s mechanism of separating us from the God-stuff within prevents us from experiencing that God-stuff, and thus a part of us is experienced all too painfully as “other” or “separated” as well.

This may sound very cerebral, but my experience of it all was very lived and awe-striking.

Stevo

Advertisements