The Serpent's Wisdom

Crossposting to challenging_god.

On a thread hidden in ricochet_rabbit's discussion about hell, ithryn asked, with regard to apocatastasis:

That idea is attractive, but that makes temporal existence very puzzling. If we're all going to heaven, why are we even here? Why aren't we instantly put into heaven now, or why weren't we created there in the first place? Why suffering? If all of us are going to end up perfectly good, why give us free will? It seems incongruent that God would dispense free will and then would utterly negate it in the end.

I do not believe in the immortality of the soul, for lack of evidence that any part of "me" will survive beyond the death of my body; yet I am a theist. This seeming contradiction multiplies the difficulty of my position.

Physicists have observed that in the void of space, particle-antiparticle pairs "burst forth" into existence all the time. This is not creation ex nihilo; the pair of particles are what result from the spontaneous transformation of a photon or packet of energy. It is not uncommon for the particle and anti-particle to meet up again and destroy one another, their mass converted to energy in the form of a photon.

I view the cosmos as a larger scale, more complex kind of odyssey akin to that of the particle-antiparticle pairs. Nothing we have observed is constant; everything, even the most fundamental properties of the spacetime continuum itself, changes over time. I view ideas like apocatastasis, the vow of the bodhisattva in Buddhism, the tikkun olam in Judaism, and the Great Work of modern occultism, as reflections of this idea that all things will eventually return to the Source, and so it is good and holy to aid this.

As an individual, I am simply a permutation of several patterns much larger than myself. I have come, as many mystics do, to identify my "true self" not with this temporal and very mortal body and mind, but with the more timeless patterns which I reflect. The "true me" will live and thrive after my death; other beings will benefit from the body I leave behind; and all is as it should be.

There seems to be an almost primal fear that many people feel when they consider that maybe there is no cosmic meaning after all. If this is so, I see it opined, then we might as well kill ourselves, or kill one another, but only after indulging our basest needs to satisfaction. Atheist mystics (yes, such a thing is possible and not really uncommon) with whom I have conversed describe the problem thus: the quest for meaningful-ness in a universe where messages from God are not forthcoming, where meaning itself appears to be a purely human invention. The next most logical answer is to look within, and discover the ways in which I can be better as an individual and as a member of my society. Meaning in this model is an unfolding, not a given; a revelation from within, not from without.

It seems to me that nothing can be more good and right than fulfilling that which I perceive is my purpose. If virtue is indeed its own reward, there is no need to worry about the possible meaningless-ness of existence.

It's an old joke in the realm of comparative religion. Only one, so the popular wisdom goes, can possibly be right, and everyone else is wrong. But what if it's some obscure tribe in South America? Or, even worse, the Hare Krishnas?

George Harrison said in an interview that one of the things that attracted him to the Hare Krishnas was the idea that when we're in heaven with Krishna, we interact personally with him in whatever way suits us most. He might be a parent, or mentor, or lover, or child.

I haven't researched the issue and so I don't know how accurate this is. Or if once we pick a single form, that we're stuck with that for eternity. But it sounds like the fun basis of a poll. I've taken a few liberties. So here goes:

[Poll #180339]

Edit: So far, only females have picked "lover." Is this because you are imagining a male avatar? Suppose the avatar could be female, too. Or maybe even a "mystif" like Pie'oh'Pah in Clive Barker's Imagica.

Ah, now I remember the other subject that called to me.

Three times in the last three days I've seen three people on my friends list, in completely disconnected contexts, quote the Greek form of John 1:2.

houtos en en arxe pros ton theon
This one was in the beginning with God.

Three disconnected occurrences is what I would consider a Sign.

houtos is ostensibly a signifier pointing at logos in verse 1. But it looks redundant after verse 1:

en arxe en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos
In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with/near God, and God was the logos.

Will have to investigate why the author felt verse 2 was necessary after verse 1.

My thoughts have been influenced by Egan's novel Distress this weekend, but he planted the thought in my mind that if there is only one Mind, the universe is not logically necessary; but if there is more than one Mind, the universe becomes necessary if those minds are to coexist and interact.

Whenever I contemplate this I come back to I:29-30 in the Book of the Law, perhaps the most beautiful and eloquent expression of the thought I have yet seen:

29. For I am divided for love's sake, for the chance of union.
30. This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division is as nothing, and the joy of dissolution all.

Or, as Buckminster Fuller put it: "Universe is a minimum of two pictures."

Theos and logos share the same essence, but have different form; one is object, one is reflecting surface; one extends, one contains; one sends, one receives. It is difficult to imagine any other solution to this metaphysical question that doesn't in some way reduce logically to the syzygy.

"Be still, and know that I am God." -- Psalm 46:10
Could this perhaps be, "Be still, and know, 'I am God'"?

So'ham, "I am he" in Sanskrit, might be the most important mantram of all. It summarizes the core of the perennial teaching -- the oneness of self and Self, of mind and Mind -- and its corrolary, the fact that cultivation of inner harmony inevitably results in harmony between the self and the cosmic order.

At the same time it recognizes the primacy of breath, and the important role of slow, regular breath in contemplative prayer and meditation. So represents the inhale, ham the exhale.

Talked to Jamie Joy earlier and offered to help with the task of bringing MindCaviar back online. She doubts she will allow the page to become such a huge project. She was working on it 40 hours a week, and making no money from it -- a true labor of love. But I feel its absence sorely.

There may also be another Eroticon in the works, but not this year. The first one was a success, not just financially, but as a gestalt -- it set in motion a project that could easily take on a life of its own. While last year it consisted of a night of readings and performances, the idea was to make it eventually a full convention focusing on literary and fine erotic art.

( I am another you; on lost paradises and immanent eschatons )

Hmm, no replies yet to my post this morning in questionofgod. Too early perhaps to declare it a ZRP? The question isn't too tough, is it?