Sunday, June 15, 2008

EPIPHANY: BORED OF THE THINGS

After Rex Preston


The boundless faith Frodo exhibits toward Gandalf in the opening scenes in Lord of the Rings filled me with a longing for such an infallible guide despite my experience of such dependent faith being a burden requiring special attention from the loved one and an atrophy of free thinking to the devotee in all cases between individuals, from teenage crushes to gurus and their disciples. Faith of individuals in the mythical deity of the culture within which they were born only atrophies original thinking to the degree of conflict between nature and the deity to be followed. In western civilization the conflict is unbelievable.

When I realized that the oneness of nature on both sides of my skin was an unstated epitome of such a desired connection having been the principle I eventually obeyed in all personal decisions throughout my life, I acknowledged a revelatory paradigm shift in my reality tunnel. My contribution to the mountain of conflicts civilized behavior has with nature dwindled to a comparative molehill of embedded values yet untested against my experience in this new light.

Consciousness of the universal flow of energy dawns when fear barriers dissolve and the gush of mutuality between nature within my skin and all of life without is that omnifaith too often fearfully, blindly, hopefully invested in individual entities and deities thought to be unique in the world. I trust myself to gain the capacity to find the nature of my actions and their natural results before acting through this connection. Ultimately the Golden Rule requires understanding how ones actions will be received at least as well as what one intends by acting. Conscious oneness with nature is the epitome of the Golden Rule and precludes abuse of any of its parts, being no longer primarily considered other, created things.

12 comments:

Lilwave said...

" Faith of individuals in the mythical deity of the culture within which they were born only atrophies original thinking to the degree of conflict between nature and the deity to be followed. "

Conflict of what nature? What about the Nature of Mankind?
It is one thing to love and accept the ways of something innocent like animals, bugs, or plants/trees but quite another thing to test the Golden rule among mankind. All of those things I mentioned have a pre-set rule for the actions it takes. It is what it is.

No doubt there are many screwed up actions being made in the name of my deity "God" but isn't that because of the nature of man being that of self-righteousness rather than the deity? You certainly do not need a deity for self-righteousness. All of mankind naturally wants to be right don't they? If they are wrong, pride will often battle it out to the end.
So let’s look at The Golden Rule statement, "Do/treat others how you would want to be treated/done unto." To treat another person or thing in the way you would want to be treated no matter who or what they believe, know, think, do....
Doesn't self-righteousness naturally conflict with the Golden Rule? To follow the Golden Rule you must often go against what you think is right to love someone exactly where they are in their own life without judgment.
Does the Golden Rule become that which goes against nature?
To me, the Golden Rule is not only understanding how ones actions will be received but willing to take responsibility for the unforeseen consequence of the action and never allowing pride to keep one from correcting the wrong. That can only happen when one allows what they think is right to sometimes be wrong.
There should never be fear in doing that but fear often comes when we expect ourselves to move out of our comfort zone. The unknown and being out of control is the motivator of fear more so than the deity.

gregra&gar said...

"Conflict of what nature? What about the Nature of Mankind?"

I guess you missed the whole point of the post — that there's no separation between the nature of any of the THINGS by their or my skin. The sorting out only obfuscates the oneness, which obviously your deity denies as well, according to your reply here and man's exceptional existence as described in the Bible.

A.Decker said...

I would say your initial commentor here does not exactly follow your meaning.
Well, I don't think I do either; not as far into the revelation as you seem to have perceived.
However, intellectually I'm able to understand and am of the opinion that you have called a spade a spade.
My question: what, if there is something you could point out, brought about your realization of "oneness of nature on both sides of my skin." As opposed to my faux-understanding in words only? 'Cause it seems you've actually seen something.
Also, "Consciousness of the universal flow of energy dawns when fear barriers dissolve..." I will hazard a guess: Is the intensity of attention that led to your vision of oneness the same thing that dissolves the fear barriers?

Oh, one more thing. The painting, After Rex Preston. Very nice work. Is it yours?

Lilwave said...

I do understand your claim that there is no separation between you and everything outside your skin and that your connected to it all by the universal flow of energy.

I guess I just don't believe it so I'm picking your brain a bit. I find it is much easier to say one thing and quite another do to it.

To be at one with everything must include oneness among your own kind as well. To me it is much easier to be at one with my cat that brought me a gigantic rat yesterday than it is with my neighbor who throws her garbage in my yard. Is that because of my deity that caused that lack of oneness with my neighbor?

Surely you realize that there are as many without a deity as there are claiming to have one. I find there is no difference between the two when it comes to selfishness.

Man chooses to destroy out of selfishness when "the things" only do what they must for survival.
The difference/separation is that we are able to choose what action we take where everything else acts out of instinct. That is why I feel it is my responsiblity to abide by the Golden Rule to help bridge the separation that you feel is not there.

gregra&gar said...

A. Decker
"it seems you've actually seen something"

What could "actually seen" mean here? The realization of something in plain sight for everyone is what I have "seen." The Tao is the way of all things, the root nature of the universe beneath its lovely, terrible, wonderful, interesting variations being born by the billions every nanosecond.

The illustration for this post is my photoshopic paraphrasing of a work by Rex Preston that suited my meaning.



Lilwave,
"To be at one with everything must include oneness among your own kind as well."

Once again you divide oneness into kinds and demand I reconcile that with my idea of the commonality of all "kinds." You cannot get beyond your borders this way, dear, or ever see what I am saying

Lilwave said...

The only reason I question it is because in order to explain your oneness you also placed your judgment. To me, that somehow contradicts the meaning of oneness. I feel that blaming a deity for the separation is as much of a crutch as those who blame a deity as an excuse for their action.

A.Decker said...

I just reread the whole thing here. I guess I'm a little slow on the uptake, or else my head's more clear this mornin', but I think I see what you mean. Somehow, what you said about the Tao sort of ties it all together; the same here as it is there.
My hangup on "seeing something" was, I think, just fishing for an extaordinary experience of some kind. Which being alive really is.

gregra&gar said...

Lilwave, I don't blame deities for anything, being the wishful figments of the worshippers imaginations. I do fault anyone who uses others as the authority for their own actions in lieu of their own inherent responsibility.

A. Decker, I guessed you were looking for a "method" with "actually seeing." I'm glad you reread it an "saw" it.

Lilwave said...

"I do fault anyone who uses others as the authority for their own actions in lieu of their own inherent responsibility."

Now that is a statement that we have both agreed on all along. People need to be responsible for their actions...period.
I don't hold that disagreement to only those who use others as the authority but that includes every breathing person, deity or not. Many think they just simply have the right to do what they want because of their own authority.

gregra&gar said...

Many think they just simply have the right to do what they want because of their own authority.

Wow. Right here, away from religion (sort of), I can state unequivocally that everything I have been saying makes me precisely one of those many. No one has authority over me or the responsibility for my actions but myself and my awareness of nature's ways. By granting the same freedoms and sole authority over and responsibility for their actions to others social intercourse is on a peaceful, cooperative course as the golden rule intended.

This precludes those you would call selfish, for the users of others for only personal gain brings no honor upon themselves and are, instead human parasites leeching energy from one and all.

Lilwave said...

"This precludes those you would call selfish, for the users of others for only personal gain brings no honor upon themselves and are, instead human parasites leeching energy from one and all."

Of course this is the point I was trying to convey. You choose to live peacefully under your own authority but I choose to do it under Gods. Either way, how can you or I, either one, disqualify the others testimony just because it doesn't confirm us in it. I am confident enough in mine that I will know what is right when choices have to be made, just as I am sure you feel the same about yourself.

gregra&gar said...

"You choose to live peacefully under your own authority but I choose to do it under Gods."

Wherefore, dearest daughter, did you find the audacious ballocks to assume you had the authority to choose any god, (or Gods, in your inimitable mispunctuating style).