divine osmosis

i think its sad, indeed, when we humans think that our own self protection (and that of our family) necessitates the taking of someone else’s life. why the mutual exclusivity?

i wrote this a few days ago, as an edit to my post on the virginia tech massacre. and now i find myself contemplating this very concept, only from a mystical perspective. mark twain, in his book what is man, writes of the innate need of humans to “… satisfy their consciences and temperaments, regardless of consequences.” simone weil, in her notebooks, applies the concept of eating, consumption, and food to humanity and its relationship with the divine. she attributes to humanity a cannibalistic nature and culture, alluding to the fundamental conflict facing all human souls ~ that we crave union with others, and destroy that which we crave simply by craving it … loving it.

as i drink in these words and allow their sentiment to fully ferment in my brain, i reflect back to the quote of mine which begins this post. and i wonder, perhaps my expectations of humanity seem too lofty? perhaps man simply cannot conceive of survival in any terms other than the violent option of mutual exclusivity? indeed, humans do love anthropophagically. our love manifests itself through this destructive force which we exert upon the Other … desire. desire ~ that destructive energy which signals (or triggers? or both?) imbalance.

can we reign in this destructive energy? can we reign in this internalized, innate really, paradigm of prey/predator … consumed/consumer? by nature, it seems, doing so would provoke a perception of self violence. surely, we would perceive the threat to ego as a direct act of self-destruction. the ego, then, projects this illusory matrix of mutual exclusivity entangled with Self survival: dog-eat-dog, predate-or-you-will-become-prey. so … essentially one must eat oneself ~ empty one’s ego, one’s own selfish will. ahhh, and then we find we cannot ~ our finitude precludes us from performing this self-cannabalism. we must submit our Selves for divine osmosis. put another way ~ we must get past the ego so that g-d may devour us … distill us to our purist form.

weil applies the metaphor of cannibalism to our relationship with the divine – with g-d when she writes of the notion g-d’s hunger to devour us ~ to eat us. essentially weil means spiritual decreation, which she sees as a mystical process involving fusion with the divine, through which the illusory aspect of the Self – the ego – shrivels away from our sacred core, that place which only g-d can fill. the Gita also speaks to this notion of nothing-ness ~ teaches us that when the Self empties the ego, ignorance dies at its root, and clarity of spirit arises, to extinguish the passionate hunger and defiling desire which has enslaved us to the substantial, material, corporeal realm. in fact, to realise oneself ~ to gain awareness of one’s own Self and decreate one’s ego ~ therein lies state of being to which all souls strive in their samsara.

the corporeal plane of existence, with its immutable laws and infallible forces of nature, imprisons the soul. and, essentially, this sounds a lot like what twain says in his writings. but, the sardonic and disillusioned twain fails to go far enough, perhaps? for he stopped short of suggesting possible any escape from the destructive forces ~ passion and desire. did he reflect on this possibility? likely he would consider any such thoughts quite spiritually arrogant ~ for what right does man have to expect any sort of attention or attending from the divine Creator? well, i have no answer, really. just a silly notion that any creative entity gives affection and intimate attention to his or her creations. for such s/he made in his/her own image.

and so, do we humans have free will? how can we, given our enslavement to ego and temperament and all that’s corporeal? distilled to this atomic level of reasoning, it makes corporeal existence seem analogous to the human existence portrayed in the matrix movies, in which machine dominates man. ahhh, but does the notion of free will necessitate the possession of power? perhaps, free will need not take such a concrete identity … perhaps in our limited human way we cannot conceive of the mystical intricacies of spirit, soul, will, and the divine. perhaps, on contemplating the notion of free will we should look to aquinas, who saw free will as far more elusive: “free-will is defined as the faculty of will and reason.” So the term free will denotes free judgement (i.e. cognating), as opposed to any power over one’s own fate, per se.

EDIT: i doubt this post and its ideas end here, so abruptly. however, the spirit has only moved me thus far today … expect this to be continued.

where does one find g-d?

i have recently discovered that mark twain wrote far more than tom sawyer-esque literature. in particular, letters from the earth hooked me. and, then, schoolhouse hill. and then i discovered … that mark twain wrote profusely about faith in the supernal, about religion, about the bible, about the nature of man. that he surmised, through his satirical writings, that eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge not only conferred upon man knowledge of good and evil and the differences that lie between them, but also a thirsty disposition to commit evil. interesting, that notion. an assertion i have not heard before. an assertion which, nonetheless, deserves noting.

i wonder, as mark twain does, does any other living thing attach so much importance to itself as does the human? what, in our nature, makes us believe so fervently that the creator made it all happen just for us? twain asks his readers, does an apple in a vast orchard think itself most special as does the human? its almost as if we need a purpose. we need something larger than us all to feel anchored. to feel purposeful. cs lewis alluded to this fact in his treatise, mere christianity. lewis believed in humanity’s need to possess the knowledge to attribute the universe either to random existence, or to some organizing power. indeed, he makes perfect sense when he says that any creating power that exists outside the universe can no more make itself known within the confines of said universe than an architect can make himself a wall in a house he’s designed. clever, that analogy.

cs lewis lyrically referred to g-d as the first love of each and every soul. indeed. how lovely, a thought. lewis asserts the notion that one finds truest evidence of g-d’s existence only within oneself. one cannot logically find g-d himself … within the confines of the universe. god’s now resounds for infinity, while our now slips away even as the words tumble from our lips. we cannot begin to comprehend g-d’s nature and the immeasurable blazing immensity of the g-d head. still … one may see a reflection of the g-d head “… flowing through the blue of the sky, the taste of honey, the delicious embrace of water whether cold or hot, and even through sleep itself.”

so, where do we find g-d? i’ve come to feel the eternal nature of this quest. how interesting that i find something … some silver thread of inspiration for the nourishment of my faith, and soul, in two streams of literary knowledge that seem opposed ~ mark twain, the cynical, satirical, and irreverent vs cs lewis, lyrical, atheist-turned-christian: skeptical apologist for believers. i have firmly held, for many years, that to truly gain an understanding of an issue or an entity in this universe, one must know what stands for it, and also what stands opposed to it. and so i see the fruits of such a process. most elucidating. in an intellectual way.

have i answered my question? perhaps, but the answer will take me several lifetimes to decode. and so, i suppose its not at all the answer one wants or expects to receive.