posted March 29, 2010 03:01 PM         

Whether or not they pretend to,
they do not ultimately touch on
the problem of God's existence,
but only on the demonstrability,
or indemonstrability, of specific claims,
and the practicality, or impracticality,
of asserting those claims.

All three must presume to know what is meant by the term "God",
and all three must presume that this term corresponds to the reality
of what God is (whether or not that reality is fact or fiction),
before they can form a single judgement about "His" existence,
about the demonstrability or indemonstrability of "His" existence,
and about the practicality or impracticality of asserting
claims proven to be indemonstrable (at least, to some).

But mystics, at their most developed,
do not assert specific claims about God.

(If they make statements,
they make just as many disclaimers
to the effect that what is said must
be taken with a grain of salt;
as tentative, provisional, and incomplete.
To the extent that one's vision is impure,
the true interpretation of holy sayings
will be "lost in translation".)

As they see it, the so-called outsiders
(the Atheists and the Agnostics) provide
a valuable service to the Church.

Their "Divine Heresy" is, in many ways,
more spiritual, and more "pleasing to God",
than the faith of the ignorant masses,
who merely call themselves believers
and think they've seen God's true face.

Nonetheless, Atheists, Agnostics and Theists
are all One in the eyes of the enlightened.

The Atheist says: There is no God.

The Agnostic says: I don't know if there is.

The Theist says: There is a God.

While the mystic says:
How can I say yes or no? --
How can I even say I don't know?
Am I even in a position to know
who or what God is or is not?
If I do not know what is meant by "God",
how can I say that I believe or dont believe?
If I don't know what's meant by "belief in God",
how do I know whether or not I believe in God?
Perhaps I know what he is or is not. Perhaps I don't.
Perhaps I believe, and perhaps I do not.
Perhaps I have seen God, perhaps I have not.
Would I even know it, if I had?

It's more about asking questions
than taking positions, -- or poses.

The mystics tell us that,
the closer one gets to God,
or to the realization of God,
the less able, and the less inclined,
one is to try to categorize "Him",
or to try to put "Him" into words.

At the same time, one is compelled
to think and speak of nothing else.

Granted, this is confusing, but,
then, the purpose of this experience
is to render contemplation more subtle;
so that the dualistic mind may begin to approach
realizations which transcend its own duality.

If we define God as the totality of all that is, then the questions "Does God exist?" and "Do you believe in God?" become nonsensical. What else is there, but God? From this perspective, the concept of God is not something which can be done away with, but only continually revised, until it transcends the intelligence altogether, and passes into ineffable wisdom.

Religious legends and archetypes, authentically understood, provide a spiritual (i.e. symbolic) language which opens up communication between the conscious and unconscious mind(s) and allows the soul to speak clearly. The more deeply you penetrate true religious imagery, the more dynamic, subtle, and multi-dimensional your religious landscape becomes. Everything is alive, which means that everything is open to interpretation, and reinterpretation. The purest and most truthful experience of God is already partially corrupted when it becomes a vision.

The paradox of revelation, and religion itself, is that what is revealed has the simultaneous potential to bring us closer to, and further away from, the experience of mystical union. For some, it is beneficial to envision God as a person, for others it works better if God is understood, or felt, only as a Presence. For still others, God is the awakened consciousness, to which all things appear charged with imminence, presence, urgency, repose, dignity, significance, life, and light. For many people, any notion of God, or "Spirit", poses a real hinderance to the experience of psychic integration. It seems that every conception of God, though it may resemble other conceptions in its broadest strokes, is ultimately unique; -- and that the same may be said of every refusal to conceive of God. It is tailored to suit only the individual to whom it occurs, and, even then, it will begin to pinch.

Is it possible for a virgin to have a child? Of course! If her virginity is SYMBOLIC, then it is not only possible, but a palpable reality, the very instant you "immaculately" conceive it. Whether or not you believe in it's deeper (possibly even cosmic and eternal) relevance, you can't help but make strong associations to this symbol; consciously and unconsciously intepreting its apparent significance in your life, and in the history of the collective.

Likewise, for a man to be equally God and The Son of God is easy enough to believe, if He is a sacred ARCHETYPE of the collective unconscious, mysteriously related to psychological forces -- and parts of our deepest selves -- which extend well beyond our ken.

Many things are possible when you understand the difference between spiritual and worldly things. But you have to dream, and believe in the sacredness of the imagination, and of the very noblest inventions of the human soul. Though you cannot bring your imagination to life (not yet), you can bring life to your imagination, -- and that is the finer thing. There is a Christ in the heart of every dreamer, and only dreamers can see Him.

posted March 29, 2010 04:19 PM         

quote:

---

Many things are possible when you understand the difference between spiritual and worldly things. But you have to dream. Though you cannot bring your imagination to life (not yet, at least), you can bring life to your imagination, -- and that is the finer thing. There is a Christ in the heart of every dreamer, and only dreamers can see Him.

---