AboutBlanchjoe Expertise Who or what is God? What is Heaven? What is the meaning of life? Who am I? What is happiness? Why is there Evil? What is Sin? What is The Bible? What is the spirit or soul?
Experience I have been a student of comarative religions for more than 25 years, and I am currently a student of Ruharia Adi Da Samraj. My primary area of study is the dynamics of the Guru/Devotee relationship.
I pretty much relate to your writings in your last post, except I would call “faith” non-verifiable and “belief” self-verifiable…words don't always do justice to the conveyance of thoughts and ideas…we may be thinking the same here?
And yes, I agree that there is another dimension to us, as humans, that is beyond words or rationalizations. Models that have been produced by man to allude to this duality of humans come in many forms. Freud created the “ego” model to generally represent that part of our psyche that is conscious, has identity, created time, and separates us from the external world around us. Freud's “id” model of our psyche is that part which is totally unconscious, timeless, and serves as the source of instinctual impulses and demands for immediate satisfaction of survival needs…our emotions (love, as you mentioned) would fall under this model. Others have used models of “secondary intelligence” (ego) and “primary intelligence” (id). Still others have models of “macro reality” (classical physics here) and “micro reality” (Quantum physics here). At any rate, both models of reality exist and are useful to our overall survival needs in my view.
Generally, what separates these two models (ego and id) is man's evolved ability to remember and recall stored sensual inputs, and thus sequence of inputs (events), to our human organizations. With memory comes the creation of time and the ability to recall past events and predict future events, keeping in mind that these models are generalizations w/ no clear line-in-the-sand separation between us and other living organizations (for example we would consider a dogs world as ego-less, timeless, and unconscious; however, there does exist some rudimentary memory as is evident of dogs twitching or barking in their sleep while dreaming and recalling past events.).
Your use of words like “The Real” or “Felt-Recognition” would be the timeless experience (present state awareness, a denizen of the “id” model) that is always present but is shrouded by man's evolved ego and thus constant rationalizations and thought processes…meditation would be one way to temporally reverse this evolved state of ego awareness. Why did the ego evolve…to increase the probability of our (human) living organizations to survive over other living organizations of course! And survival is a denizen of organization and thus a determinant (maybe by god design or not) of organization in my view. I don't question the hammer dropping to the ground, nor do I question survival being a determinant of “organization” and my view of the universe being one of “organization and disorganization exist”…here again, this is the basis of my personal belief system and my model of reality that I perceive to be rational and necessary for my survival needs.
Humans can create meaning on an ego level to increase the probability of survival, which is ok in my view, but until they make the conscious choice to turn from this ego mind, time-running-state (conscious thoughts and rationalizations), and reconnect to the “id”, timelessness (unconscious awareness) within…(as you would say, “Felt-Recognition, or even a Re-Cognition”), we can never really experience the joy of just being one w/ the universe, reconnected to our spiritual body, without bounds, and without needs.
This state of awareness would in my view be the true meaning of our spiritual life; so I suppose that, according to my belief system, we really have a dual nature to the question of “what is the meaning of life?” (both spiritual and physical). Do you see this duality as well?
Also, if I may ask, what is your cultural and occupational background?
-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
Yes, I agree with your statement, “But what IS the universe, regardless if one wants to describe it as orderly or dis-orderly, ..I do not know.”.
I too do not know if the universe was created by a higher intelligence of some sort, that designed this universe to have these properties (exact constants, ratios, and forces associated w/ particles and masses…out to many decimal places I might add), that just threw it all out there and allowed it to organize and create life as we know it. It's just as probable that there are multiple (infinite number) universes and ours is the only one to create order out of disorder and allowed consciousness to evolve to say, “wow, look at all this!”.
And yes, I also agree with your statement describing my observations of this cosmos, “organization and disorganization exist” as “belief.” This belief would be the bases of my belief system; or in other words, the underlining relative truth of my philosophical model of reality. Regardless of whether we're atheists, agnostics, Christian, Buddhists, Hindus, etc, all conscious (ego oriented) living organizations (ie. humans) have a belief system that they use to make sense of their environments and thus to increase their probability of survival.
All human created models have relative truths that are useful within the model to allow us to survive in the present and predict the future in order to increase our probability of survival…survival of self, family, and community. For example, within the model of math 1+1=2 is a truth but this very truth is still based on basic assumptions and set theory…just what is “1” anyway? The model of classical physics says that matter cannot be created or destroyed…this is a basic truth only within this model of physics. Conversely, the model of Quantum Physics says that matter can appear out of nothing…a relative truth again. Within Christianity, Jesus is God…a relative truth. And within Islam, Allah is God…again, a relative truth.
I suppose the point I'm getting to is, the human conscious experience is based on models that are all relative, but useful to our survival. It's ok to have beliefs and a philosophical interpretation of our realities…in fact its necessary. These individual and cultural cumulative belief systems make up our macro realities.
To me, the meaning of life becomes a self-created paradigm (again another model) that comforts us, makes us feel good, and increases our perceived ability to survive in this life and hopefully beyond. Our perceived meaning of life creates our legacies and drives our behaviors; and in some cases (terrorists), this legacy becomes more important in death (disorganization) than in life (organization).
Do I have “faith” that I will continue to exist in some spiritual form after death…No, because faith to me implies knowing something to be true when we really don't. Do I have “hope” to continue to exist in some spiritual form after death…Yes, because it's apart of my very nature to survive in whatever form. This hope is apart of my self-created paradigm (belief system) and becomes the foundation for personal meaning in life.
I suppose my question to you would be: Does this make any sense to you?
-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
This may differ with your premise, “Regardless of what we believe, read, have learned, was preached to, or what we've been told, in the final analysis we do not know what ANYTHING “is”.” The only thing I feel that I really know or can be known about the universe for sure is: Organization (that which created life) and disorganization (entropy - that which leads to destruction and death) exist! Would this be something you could buy into or know for sure about the something we call the universe?
-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
From your view point, is there a higher purpose in life (god inspired or directed), or is our meaning and purpose just ego related and based on our survival instincts?
Answer -
Dear Bill,
An interesting question.
This is a classic Meaning Of Life Question, and asking what is The Meaning of Life is not a cognitive inquiry, it is an emotional stance.
Asking what is The Meaning of Life “is” a feeling about ourselves and about our common experience, and our relationship to that experience.
Since there is no way to intellectually answer a feeling, the only way to respond to such a question is to understand such a feeling and why it arises.
The question of “is there a higher purpose” or “who are we and where do we come from” or “what is the Truth”, and “what is this life all about” are all the same at their root.
The cursory way to answer such questions is to acquire a belief-system ( read a dogma ) in which one is tutored in the answer of life. Dogma has all the answers for all ones questions, however they may not be the Truth.
There are several approaches to this inquiry about meaning and our lives.
Since we exist in a predominantly Christian culture, one approach to answer this question is from a traditional Christian viewpoint.
There is no Bible verse that says, "The meaning of life is . . . .", or “We are here to do this or that”, so to discover the Biblical view of life's meaning one must extrapolate and interpolate.
Genesis records the initial purpose of humankind was initially to care for creation.
Between The Law and The Commandments expressed the directive to care for creation, with special attention added to the ethical treatment of humanity.
Two commandments and one commission can summarize virtually all that Jesus the Nazarene taught.
We are to love God, love each other (Matthew 22.37-39), and we are to be busy making disciples by sharing what Jesus taught (Matthew 28.19-20).
So our purpose from a Christian point of view is to care for creation, care for each other, and share the teachings of Christ, all of which demonstrate our commitment to God.
For believers it is irrelevant to ask such questions, because Biblical commandments, or dogma already answers such questions.
However outside scripture or dogma, to investigate the larger perspective we must question and ourselves and fully consider what it means to ask What is The Meaning of Life.
First and foremost to ask such a question requires a “perceiver”, and a Perceiver is an entity that is conscious of it's own awareness, or in other words that there is an aware being who perceives a contrast between the perceiver and that which is perceived.
So to ask what is the meaning of life highlights the existence of a duality between life and the entity who is aware of life, a separation between ourselves and life itself.
As individuated and egoic conscious beings we live in the realm of meanings. We do not experience pure circumstances “as” they are in-and-of-themselves, we experience circumstances in relation to our individuated perception exclusively.
As such we are the perceivers of our own meaning in life.
But it is important to recognize that the question of the “meaning of life” or “why are we here” has within it the “assumption” that there is a meaningful answer.
To ask “why are we here” or “what is the meaning of life” implies that life is supposed to have a meaning and to make sense, which is an area of concern that trees and animals about us do not disturb themselves with.
To ask such questions implies a way of looking at the world, and that such an outlook defines life as a question, or as an equation that has parts with a sum.
Such questions imply that if one added all the correct variables, then a coherent and cognizant summation or “meaning” would arise.
However lets apply some reductive logic to this question.
Life's meaning obviously is not found in what we have achieved, know, experienced or accumulated.
If this was the case then those of us who owned the most, knew the most, or who experienced life the greatest would be those who knew the meaning of life, or who were the wisest and happiest individuals amongst us.
However we know that this is not the case, indeed such individuals are often more aware of the inherent bankruptcy of meaning within such avenues of life then most and suffer even more acutely as a result. [ See St. Francis of Assisi as a Christian reference ].
Allegorically to ask “why are we here” or “what is the meaning of life” from the standpoint of mere logic is similar to asking, . . .what is more “North” than the North Pole?
Since there is only South every way you turn such a question has no intelligible answer, and as such it is only within the conventions of language or speech that allows one to ask such a question.
Even though such questions have no real cognitive sense, …they do have a powerful and personal “emotive” significance to us at a personal level.
Such questions are not mere conceptual interrogatories, they are emotional queries.
Such questions are a form of seeking through the use of Mind to solve a Mystery of feelings.
It is the desire to Think through, or solve a question of the Heart via the use of the mind.
It is the search for something “more”, for something “deeper”, for something “meaningful”, for something that is “The Way”, for something that can be weighed against the eventual cessation of our existence, and which is the fundamental motivating source for such questions.
This is source of where the “search” for a “right” belief, or a methodology that will triumph over death, or the apparent “non-meaning” of life arises.
There are some intuitively direct understandings ( or absolutes ) that can enlighten us that are not dependent upon a mere belief, as such there are some “things” we do know for certain.
First is the understanding that we do not know what anything “is”?
Regardless of what we believe, read, have learned, was preached to, or what we've been told, in the final analysis we do not know what ANYTHING “is”.
We do not know what this moment is.
We do not know who we are, or what life is.
Secondly we do not know how or why we exist.
As conscious beings we are aware in “this” moment, and though we have memories of existing for some period of time, at some point all are memories cease.
Thirdly we do not know where we are bound to?
Consciousness senses movement in time, and we recognize that we will cease to exist, and regardless of what we think, read, believe, or have been told, we do not “know” where we will go when this experience ends.
Fourthly is the experience of individuation.
This means that we are only directly conscious or directly aware of ourselves alone and that all else appear within our senses.
It means that we have no “direct” sense of awareness of the consciousness of others as-themselves, or things as themselves.
Our actual experience is that there is an “us”, and everything [ the rest of The Universe including God ] that is “not” us.
From these simple Truths we can understand that Life is a profound Mystery, and we are a part of That Life.
There is an old Taoist story that defines how we perceive life, and what life “means”.
One day a farmers horse ran away.
His neighbors said, "Such bad luck".
"May be," the farmer replied.
The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses.
"How wonderful," the neighbors exclaimed.
"May be," replied the old man.
Later his son rode one of the untamed horses, and broke his leg.
The neighbors offered their sympathy.
"May be," answered the farmer.
The day after those military officials came to draft young men into the army.
The son's leg was broken, so they passed him by.
The neighbors congratulated the farmer.
"May be ," said the farmer.
Life is much like this Koan, in that the answer to a Koan is in the question.
The answer to both Life and to a Koan exists within the realization that there is a no-answer to life, just as there is a no-answer to a Koan, yet this does not exclude the actuality that both Meaning and Wisdom exist in both.
So in answer to your question, there is no way to determine if an ego directed survival-based life is, or is not, also a God inspired life?
There is no way to determine if there is, or is not a God?
Or if there is, or is not a higher meaning?
There is no way to determine if our unconcious assumption of an individuated duality is a correct assumption, for if it is not correct, then even asking the question of what is the meaning to life is already a presumptive error!
In other words the meaning of life may be patently obvious, and it is we who are blind to it because of the continous but blind assumptions of our existence that separates us from life and its meaning.
Our lives and the Truth, or the meaning to life may already be in harmony; we merely perceive it to be other than what it is.
The problem with answering any question about what is the meaning of our lives, is that one is force to make numberless blind assumptions about what this simple ordinary moment is now, and the reality is that we have no idea what this simple ordinary moment fundamentally is.
I hope that this was helpful,
Blanchjoe
Answer -
Dear Bill,
Yes your commentary does differ from my premise, the problem with any position of knowledge about this experience is that to say anything beyond the statement, “…I do not know what anything is…” demands that a position of knowledge is assumed, for example in your statement where you described your experience as a differentiation between entropy and non-entropy implies first that there exists an individuated perceiver separate from the experience, and that within that perception by that perceiver exists order and dis-order.
This represents two assumptions as fact that can not be self-verified.
Of course my own experience allows me an infinite number of possible variations of description that could be used to define this common experience, this cosmos, but since I can not self-verify any of those assumptions, they fall into what is commonly called "belief".
Does the universe appear to have order, yes.
Does the universe appear to be chaotic, yes.
But what IS the universe, regardless if one wants to describe it as orderly or dis-orderly, ..I do not know.
To my mind to spend time creating definitions of a fundamentally mysterious experience is much like organizing (or dis-organizing) the deck chairs upon the Titanic, meaning that to do so misses a larger and unrecognized issue.
Besides even within your own definitions problems arise, for example most creation or order arises from the act of destruction or dis-order, and vice-versa, so fundamentally these are not opposing forms at play within this experience, but instead are imposed differentiations, they are two sides of a mysterious coin that has yet to be named.
I hope that this was helpful.
Blanchjoe
Answer -
Dear Bill,
Your letter is clear and concise, and contains many interesting points of consideration.
Do you I understand your letter in its totality, . . . yes.
Is it true that symbolic forms (language and beliefs) are useful, yes.
Do I have an answer in reply to all of what your questions mean fundamentally, no.
Our common experience (Life or the universe) is not a question, it is not a formula with a summation at the end.
There is no “meaning” of life, per se.
You are correct, there is no praise nor blame to having a belief, and while it is true that we develop belief systems about our common experience for survival reasons, or just because we feel the emotive demand to have a meaning, it must be recognized that these belief systems as functional as they are, are merely symbolic patinas applied to the unknown, and do not have anything to do with what “is” the Real.
Just as language is a useful symbolic construction that make use of the assumption of meanings exchanged between two parties, . . .so to are our belief systems.
Of course it is possible to describe the universe with figurative communication and with greater and greater levels of definition, but regardless of how well we define the cosmos with symbolic meaning, speaking the word terms “. . .let there be light. . .” will never create light from darkness.
Most religions are based within the consideration of our deaths, meaning that as living beings we fear the unknown and do not want to have an end to our experiencing, but this also means that most religions adopt a “hopeful stance” which is the emotive bedrock of all belief methodologies.
Those individuals who adopt a religious or a belief methodology, do so in felt “hope” that some beneficial outcome will transpire via all their efforts, and this is fine, but all of this must not be confused with the actual gnosis “of” reality itself, which does not require hope or belief.
One does not need to have a "belief" that a hammer will fall if you let it drop.
While it may be impossible to prove that a hammer will always drop if released, it is not necessary to convince another individual with dogma or with argumentation or with a personal testimony that it will drop, and why?
Because for the obvious reason that a dropped hammer is a gnosis, it is a perceived reality for all individuals, it is an article of Faith, not an article of Belief.
Faith is something that an individual has in a process, event or circumstance that is completely Self-Verifiable.
Belief is something that an individual has about a process, event or circumstance that is completely symbolic and non-verifiable.
To understand What Is The Real, and to Know Thyself, are the two most demanding aspects of any wisdom, and which are the root of all true spiritual searches and insights, one can easily use a lifetime coming to understand both.
It has been my experience that life DOES have a “meaning”, but it is not a cognitively defined connotation, or in other words, it can not be symbolic and still be "Real".
The meaning behind this simple moment is a Felt-Recognition, or even a Re-Cognition, or in other words, it is an understanding that is not merely a mentalization of experience, but an actual felt understand in experience, and in that sense it is word-less.
Regardless of how we define Love, when you are in love you recognize it, and your whole experience alters because of it.
No amount of communication will create love in another, and no amount of reading about it will create it in ourselves.
Just so is the meaning of life, it exists as a self-verifiable reality that is not available within symbolic representation because the meaning of life is not symbolic, but bound to the Real as the Real.
When two individuals who have understood meet and who have a common recognition of the meaning of this ordinary experience, no discussion is necessary for the re-cognition of the meaning of life is self-evident, just as self-evident as a hammer that falls when released.
I hope that this was helpful.
Blanchjoe
Answer Dear Bill,
Of course you can exchange Faith for Belief, or vice-versa, it is merely a semantical affectation wherein the meaning remains constant.
I use these terms in the fashion of “Having” faith in something, as opposed to “Wanting” to believe in something, but that is merely my personal usage.
I enjoyed reading your considerations, I recognize many of the suppositions and conclusions you have come to.
Just a simple point, in your sentence, “. . . but until they make the conscious choice to turn from this ego mind, time-running-state (conscious thoughts and rationalizations), and reconnect to the “id”, timelessness (unconscious awareness) within…” I disagree with the qualification of the words conscious choice.
First this implies that such an awareness as you described it (if such a state exists as I have never directly experienced it so I am unable to speak upon it directly) is a different state other than what the perceiver already experiences?
To my mind such a statement does not feel true, instead it may be just as true that such a state is made available to the perceiver, not via the acquisition of another state, but instead through the understanding of the already existing ordinary experience.
In other words there is only this ordinary moment, which is recognized for its actual condition, so instead of the perceiver altering his perception to acquire another greater or all-encompassing state of perception, he or she instead merely awakens to the Real or correct perception of the simple ordinary moment.
So the Real may be available not by acquiring a state the individual does not have, but instead the Real may be available via the un-learning, or the re-understanding, an already existing action being performed by the perceiver themselves within the state they are already in.
While such a distinction may appear pedantic, it is the difference between an individual ceaselessly and fruitlessly seeking (because such a state of awareness may exist), as opposed to merely coming to re-cognize or understand that ordinary state which already does exist and which does not require searching.
Secondly is the implication that such a state is a place or position that one can choose to gain or acquire via the effort of will.
I feel that if this was the case then there would be a significant number of individuals purporting to have acquired such a position of awareness, and experience appears to indicate otherwise.
Regarding your final questions.
I am an artist, who works a day job, a married man with one child living in the Pacific Northwest. I have been a member of various spiritual organizations and have scholastically studied comparative religions for 25 years.
