Diebert writes: "So you are saying you are listening to God but not understanding what he's trying to say? But you did divine a "beckoning" of course so it's not that incomprehensible."
My views on things, naturally, have been carved out of my own experiences. Having had a fairly eventful spiritual life, but not having had the time in between so many thunderous blasts, there comes the time when I have had to 'go back over everything'. To make this a completely tangible conversation would, of course, also make it auto-biographical and in that way not 'abstract'. Interestingly, just recently, when you described an estuary-land of some sort I suppose on the Netherland coast, that description allowed far more understanding of you. Also it demonstrates the power of 'showing, not telling' in literature, but that is another story.
As I have been thinking about it all [Liberty Sea asked me to define my 'philosophy' in a PM and I have been attempting it, in strange ways perhaps, over the last group of posts], I have realized that it is not exactly 'belief in God' that motivates me. As I understand it, this 'God' we refer to in some sort of energy or power that permeates all matter ('Brahman' I guess one would say), is just too vast to stand in relation to. Once one has had that 'vision' of the sense of how 'God' exists and how we participate in a structure that is part-and-parcel of God, at least in my case, the focus shifted to what sort of beings (either specific people or disembodied 'persons') are the 'representatives' of that 'God Awareness' on this Earth. If one goes the route of trying to locate 'masters' and 'gurus' and 'temples' and 'lineages' one quickly gets muddled in rather terrible problems: the human agencies are all polluted. We only have to refer to the whole post-WW2 'spirituality movements' to see all the resulting madness. But there is another route which may or not be available to everyone: seeking within the inner dimensions of consciousness for the Master who has conquered bondage to matter and is no longer beholden to the terrestrial birth and death cycles. It is the same idea of locating a 'guru' (which in Buddhism and all Hindu disciplic forms is essential, as well apparently in the Sufi and so many other traditions) out there, somewhere, who like you lives on the Earth in a body. So, instead of 'out there' one makes it 'in here' which opens up whole other dimensions.
The 'beckoning' I was speaking of is a sort of prayer in this context. What is received as a response comes back to you in indescribable ways. Could be in dreams or visions. Could be in people you meet. Could be in inner promptings that cause you to do certain things and not others, or go certain places. The long and the short of it [to get sort of gnostic on you] is that 'one thing leads to another' and within a very definitie kind of faith-knowledge one moves in the world and learns what one is to learn.
At a certain point, in my case, I became aware of a duality. I exist here, just like all of us, in a body that will die. On another level, I live in what I understand as an eternal 'space' or 'level of energy' that is no subject to death. Because it is part-and-parcel of eternity: eternal life. I think I would have to say, if really pressed, that once you 'know' that, your relation to things, people, this world, and all the discomforts of fatality, take on a different aspect.
But you asked: "So you are saying you are listening to God but not understanding what he's trying to say?" And I would say that every man who asks the most significant questions, and if he continues asking them, will receive answers. But the 'answer-process' is not at all what we imagine it will be, and certainly 'should' be. Once one has formed the Questions, and if they are the right Questions, and once one has sent those Questions out into the manifestation like a vibration, it automatically sets up the 'response-process', and all those birds so to speak come home to roost. (There are numerous people on this forum now who undertand this quite well.)(And there are others to whom this makes no sense at all).
The Answer comes back in ways that I would describe as miraculous: laced with meaning, laced with beauty and ironies on so many levels. And the question would naturally be: "Well, is that coming back from God?" And as I understand it the answer is no but also yes. What it seems to come back through are those entities and personages to whom we are linked on very subtle and internal levels. Just like we have a physical family so to we have a 'spiritual' family. We are linked to so many others! I think this is where the notion of 'body of Christ' becomes particularly poignant as a symbol (and idea) as well as a fact. Yes, it is 'from God' insofar as God is underlying all things. But it is not necessarily coming from what one might call 'the heart of God' or the 'God-loka'. It seems that the way it is set up is that it filters down through many levels (that is, persons) that (in my view anyway) are outside and 'above' physical biological manifestation, and then into and through people. There are certain people (alive in this plane of consciousness) who have a great deal of personal power [in this spiritual sense]. But there are other beings and personalities who have infinitely more
and (again, as I understand it though can hardly believe it) are not 'confined' to physical bodies.
But they seem to be aware of a couple of things: One is that the only place where spiritual work goes on is within the world of incarnated souls. The work that is carried on is carried on directly in relation to beings who are alive in this plane of existence. It is a work of incredible subtlety. It is a work of suggestion and in a very real sense occurs 'tras bambalinas'. The work is carried out among the sick. This, to me, is another very interesting link to the doctrines of Jesus (or 'Jesus' if you prefer): only the sick need a physician. To require a physician requires awareness of sickness. What I have found is that the most interesting growth and change takes place in these borderlands of life.
But the essential thing is that this 'work' (if one indeed considers it to be a 'real thing') occurs on all levels of a man's being: mental, emotional, subconscious. Only a fool would state, in any seriousness, that it is a 'rational' process. I don't think it is. If one does not engage with oneself on a full level I believe it is not real engagement. It seems to have a great deal to do with the heart.
Diebert writes: "Neuroses, psychological descriptions of the mental process of suffering, could be described as being intrinsically linked to a false belief (eg Jung in Memories, Dreams, Reflections: "content with ...inadequate or wrong answers to the questions of life"). This creates the question if "non-belief" could become neurotic as well. It's easy to see how attachment can lead to suffering and disorder but how about detachment? Isn't it something that is akin to escapism and denial? And can detachment then perhaps become a mirror image of its foe attachment? Because it's often tempting to abandon the situations which are causing distress, which indicated there's an attachment to stress in the first place.
I am not sure if what you mean refers to the 'desacralization' of the cosmos, which results in 'non-belief'. But what in the heck is someone going to 'believe in'? Some freakshow eschatological and State Jesus lording it over past, present and future? Sitting on top of the death-machines as they plow the present for some Wonderous Consumer Future?
It is very, very hard it seems to me to find authentic spiritual trails in this world. But I will say that one of the reasons I am a defender of the 'human horizon' as the 'only' horizon that has meaning [for spiritual work] is exactly because human flesh is in a sunken state, dominated by forces (if you'll permit me) of 'darkness'. The lower down in the ocean of materialism one sinks, the more tenuous becomes the light that reaches one. The ones who actually establish---uncover, modify, restate---the perennial so-called 'spiritual truths' are part of a movement to (again please permit me to say it like this) resurrect the dying flesh.
Diebert writes: "The question then remains if people are really that much aware of the pet definitions being kept around. It's not the spoken and shared ones which are the most distorting after all. Defining is known as the great "carving up and dividing". Not to suggest that the mind should stop doing the very thing that could be called its nature, but that awareness should extend to the process of carving itself. This is a way to define meditation but then applied to minute-by-minute living. Attention to this thing is a special kind of attention. And the absoluteness of its appearance is a special kind of absolute. Every experience is absolute in the sense one cannot deny experience happening but it doesn't mean that one cannot distinguish anymore between absolutes. On the contrary, it's unavoidable!"
I don't know, myself. On one hand it seems to me that people are getting more and more deeply mired in materialism and certain forms of sensualism. I tend to see things sometimes in the light of a sort of 'captive flesh matrix'. But at the same time there is a great deal more awarness on so many other, important levels. Myself, I think I can understand 'minute-by-minute' living, but I also tend to believe that we need the Large Maps. I would put it in terms of the Extraordinary Extraordinary
(as recently came up). The Tale that says so much and motivates people to, somehow, live out great ideas, ideas of great meaning, lives of great meaning.