It seems at first glance that the Abrahamic religions have little in common with the Eastern traditions of Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism, particularly because the former describe an external God and the latter emphasize the God-nature within all of us. Are these traditions speaking of different phenomenon? How can they be reconciled?
I contend that they are speaking about the same phenomenon. The primary difference being, the Western religions take the perspective of the ego, and the Eastern religions take the perspective of awareness. In the New Testament, Jesus references his "father who art in heaven". That God is nothing but awareness, and Jesus is the ego. In Buddhism, no such God figure exists. Instead there is Buddha nature, which all Buddhists hope to realize. This is done, essentially through the realization of no-self. So, from the Buddhist approach, instead submission of the ego, or personal self, to God, that ego is merely examined closely, and seen as illusory.
In Buddhism enlightenment means non-duality. The same message is present in The Bible. In John 14, Jesus says,
"Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me..."
This passage show that Jesus didn't believe in a God that was separate from his own self. This is the same as the realization of Buddha nature. And in the gospel of Luke, Jesus talks about heaven on Earth. This is can be seen as the same thing as nirvana. "Knowing God", and similarly be thought of as enlightenment. And according to the ancient Greek, Jesus is not "the" son of God, he is "a" son of God. In Buddhism there is a contrast between self and no-self; ignorance and enlightenment, whereas in Christianity, there is a contrast between God and man. The languages are a little different, but it seems to me that they express the same idea.
I think this fundamental concept of unity is the keystone of most, if not all the world's significant religions. Likewise, it appears in contemporary spiritual traditions. Ramana Mahrishi, the great 20th Indian Sage of Tamil Nadu spoke of the
same phenomenon. He implored seekers to find the source of the "I"
thought, and to contemplate it. He and his teachings are responsible for the "Neo Advaita Vedanta" movement which is becoming popular on the American west coast. Eckhart Tolle, the author of the acclaimed Power of Now urges his readers to "aware in the present moment", and thus have the "self talk" dwindle away, and so removing the ego and seeing reality as it is.
You can phrase the phenomenon is many different, ways, but the goal of spiritual traditions, is to recognize the difference between identifying with the isolated idea of the person you think you are versus the entire field awareness. There is no separate self, because that awareness is a verb, and not a noun. The idea, that noun, of who you think you are exists within that awareness, and it is dependent upon that awareness to exist at all.
It's like there are two selves: there is the fake self that an amalgamation of personality, life story and your body; and then there is the real self which is formless, which perceives the fake self. The unreal self is essentially a conglomeration of thoughts that must be constantly maintained in order to continue to exist. The real self is formless and eternal. This is the essential message of all genuine prophets throughout the ages.
Realizing non-duality leads to extraordinary peace, because when you no longer see yourself as separate, there is no more "me vs them". Then if conflict does arise, it can be seen one immediately takes responsibility for it. Instead of thinking what a terrible world it is that has put me into this situation, one becomes empowered, and realizes that there is no separate world out there punishing oneself; there is only a particular circumstance, which has arisen of it's own accord. From this way of thinking there are no victims. Essentially this is the same as consigning your will to God. In my opinion, devoting one's self to God is not the full realization, because there is there is still a self to submit...but then again, if the submission is absolute, then perhaps there is no difference.
When you realize that it's all just you, there is no longer need to attain anything. If you can see that wherever you are and whatever you are doing, you are complete, then it's a small step to realize that unhappiness is caused be the tension we create in the body when we mentally cling to the material things that we do not have. From there you can realize that you have the choice to hang on to your unfulfilled desires, or to simply let them go. It's mere choice. What is there to fear but death? And what is death but the breaking up of the body? No one knows what happens at the time of death, but it's only a problem if you're identified with the body. Therefore, even though I am not Christian, perhaps I can agree that when someone dies, he goes to heaven.
People have been realizing God consciousness and non-duality, at least since there has been writing--and it seems a bit silly not to assume they have been before then. The experience is constantly being rediscovered and expressed in different terms. But if it's genuine, it's the same phenomenon, of discovering one's own true nature:oneness; peace; love; whatever.
Showing posts with label consciousness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consciousness. Show all posts
Monday, February 27, 2012
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Small Self VS Big Self: The Chicken or the Egg of Conciousness Pt.2
I was sitting in my friend, Dustin's attic bedroom last night, talking philosophy, and I was trying to explain the idea that the universe needs an observer to exist. (I posted an earlier thread about this, which was a dialogue between myself, and my friend Obi.) I don't know how the conversation spiraled into this topic, but it's something I had tried to explain to him before. Anyway, he strongly disagreed with the idea, and he eventually just said that he was done talking about it.
Now, Dustin is a pretty easy going fellow, and not quick to anger, so I wonder what made him so mad. I wonder what made Obi so mad, when I talked about it with him. I understand that the common understanding, at least in the west, is that the universe somehow exists independently of the observer. It's a very intuitive idea, but it was also a very intuitive idea that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that the Sun and the planets all moved around around it, and we all know how that turned out.
But I think that the question about the universe existing without an observer is a far simpler question--you don't need to be an astronomer to puzzle it out. You don't need any kind of specialized knowledge at all. It's just a matter of employing reason.
Imagine I ask someone to show me an orange, and he does. Then I ask them to show me an orange the next day, but that night, I shoot myself with a ray-gun an disintegrate myself completely. The next day, will they still be able to show me the orange? If the answer is "no", then how can I know that the orange is there?
The guy with the orange knows its there, but what happens if HE gets disintegrated with a ray gun?
How can the universe exist without an observer? How can anything exist without an observer? What characterizes it? What shape does it have? How big is it? How can you know it's there if no one notices it?
When you think that the universe exists independent of the self, then it's easy to make the assumption, that the world that you perceive is something you're inhabiting--that you're just a body. But you're not just your body, you're consciousness. The body is perceived by consciousness. Of course the body is the SEAT of consciousness, maybe even the source (though I don't believe this), but you're experiencing the world through the filter of your senses. YOUR senses. If it were possible to somehow experience the universe objectively, my guess is that it would be totally incomprehensible.
Dustin told me that he didn't believe in spirituality and that he didn't understand why I had to analyze everything.
But it seems to me that this is defensiveness. I think there is something attractive to people about imagining themselves as an insignificant speck in a massive universe. I don't know what the attraction IS, but I've seen that when you try to challenge this understanding, otherwise rational people become really upset.
On the other hand, there are real benefits to understanding the universe as an expression of your own awareness. For one thing, when you start to view people as manifestations of your self, a genuine vicariousness naturally springs up, and the need to assert the ego dwindles, and with it the need to create, or be a part of conflict.
When you think about life this way, you take ownership of it. Then you realize the power of judgment and acceptance--you realize that when your are judging someone, you are really judging yourself, and when you are accepting someone, you are really accepting yourself.
If you instead decide to cling to the view of separateness, then what are you? What defines you? Only ego, which is constantly asserting itself to maintain the spell of existence, and often creating great harm as it does so.
Now, Dustin is a pretty easy going fellow, and not quick to anger, so I wonder what made him so mad. I wonder what made Obi so mad, when I talked about it with him. I understand that the common understanding, at least in the west, is that the universe somehow exists independently of the observer. It's a very intuitive idea, but it was also a very intuitive idea that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that the Sun and the planets all moved around around it, and we all know how that turned out.
But I think that the question about the universe existing without an observer is a far simpler question--you don't need to be an astronomer to puzzle it out. You don't need any kind of specialized knowledge at all. It's just a matter of employing reason.
Imagine I ask someone to show me an orange, and he does. Then I ask them to show me an orange the next day, but that night, I shoot myself with a ray-gun an disintegrate myself completely. The next day, will they still be able to show me the orange? If the answer is "no", then how can I know that the orange is there?
The guy with the orange knows its there, but what happens if HE gets disintegrated with a ray gun?
How can the universe exist without an observer? How can anything exist without an observer? What characterizes it? What shape does it have? How big is it? How can you know it's there if no one notices it?
When you think that the universe exists independent of the self, then it's easy to make the assumption, that the world that you perceive is something you're inhabiting--that you're just a body. But you're not just your body, you're consciousness. The body is perceived by consciousness. Of course the body is the SEAT of consciousness, maybe even the source (though I don't believe this), but you're experiencing the world through the filter of your senses. YOUR senses. If it were possible to somehow experience the universe objectively, my guess is that it would be totally incomprehensible.
Dustin told me that he didn't believe in spirituality and that he didn't understand why I had to analyze everything.
But it seems to me that this is defensiveness. I think there is something attractive to people about imagining themselves as an insignificant speck in a massive universe. I don't know what the attraction IS, but I've seen that when you try to challenge this understanding, otherwise rational people become really upset.
On the other hand, there are real benefits to understanding the universe as an expression of your own awareness. For one thing, when you start to view people as manifestations of your self, a genuine vicariousness naturally springs up, and the need to assert the ego dwindles, and with it the need to create, or be a part of conflict.
When you think about life this way, you take ownership of it. Then you realize the power of judgment and acceptance--you realize that when your are judging someone, you are really judging yourself, and when you are accepting someone, you are really accepting yourself.
If you instead decide to cling to the view of separateness, then what are you? What defines you? Only ego, which is constantly asserting itself to maintain the spell of existence, and often creating great harm as it does so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)