i once read in a book
that if anyone actually
were to discover
why the universe was created,
it would instantly disappear
in a puff of logic.
of course,
there's no way to prove
this whimsical hypothesis;
and i'm okay with that.
when you can do nothing, what can you do?
i want to begin by addressing a key element that will be essential to understanding the central thesis of this treatise: paradox.
a paradox is a statement that, while seemingly absurd or contradictory, is in actuality true, or expresses a truth. the silence of midnight, to speak truly, rung in my ears; is an example of paradox. most of us have a basic understanding of this idea. it has long been familiar as a nifty literary gadget and is used in many popular expressions, poems, and parables. however, a lack of depth in the understanding of paradox has led many to miss the incredible and crucial implications of this fundamental concept.
in order to understand the ideas that will be later introduced, one has to first be familiarized with paradox. for that, an immediate adjustment must be made to my initial definition of the term. paradox is not simply a statement, device, or concept; but in fact, it is a phenomenon. paradox is a circumstantial manifestation. it is an experience, not an idea. an absurd statement will always remain an absurd statement—plain, pointless, and in no short supply. absurdity and contradiction do not constitute paradox. it is only if the absurdity being stated, when experienced, proves to be true, that paradox is born.
but even this explanation is putting the cart before the horse. if the significance of paradox lies entirely in the experience, with little bearing to its literary expression, it is always the paradoxical experience that comes first to then give life to its penned description. what this reversal does is release paradox from its classical bondage to literary tradition, allowing it to take on much more meaningful qualities.
here, a second modification must be made to my original explanation. the call for a “deeper understanding” of paradox is a profoundly misleading statement. paradox is not constitutional law, it does not require deep understanding. in fact, paradox is not, and cannot, be the object of any understanding. by its very essence, paradox is logically unsound. it defies understanding. its nature is to defy understanding. the mechanisms of reason will always fail at attempting to qualify or quantify the phenomenon of paradox.
consider this amusing idiom:
according to all known laws of aviation, there is no way a bee should be able to fly. its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground. the bee, of course, flies anyway; because bees don't care what humans think is impossible.
even paradox is paradoxical: a thing that can't be true, but is true anyway. a notion discredited by thought and reason, but certified by experience. understanding is irrelevant and impossible when faced with this elegant dynamic. in the absence of understanding, paradox thrives. one must be stripped of all logic, reason, and rationality if he is to come to terms with the paradoxical experience. only a fool attempts to rationally comprehend the incomprehensible; and he who does, is surely to drive himself mad.
in this regard, we are faced with a new challenge. our task is not to dominate the paradoxes of our lives with logic, but be encompassed by their reality through experience. understanding is inept, it will always prove futile. in lieu of understanding, we are to embrace the delicate truth and beauty of these phenomena. at first, this will seem a slow and subtle process. but as experience piles on experience, you will marvel at their sheer totality and abundance in your everyday life.
i've purposely belabored this point because i want to make certain it is understood. paradox is inherent to everything we aren't intellectually able to grasp. it is integral to the dynamics of some of life's deepest mysteries. our ceaseless need for understanding blinds us from the reality of many paradoxical experiences. instead of their acceptance, we dismiss their reality. instead of leaving ourselves open to their embrace, we deploy our logic to take care of the confusion. if you are hankering for an example that illustrates the phenomenon i am describing, you've missed the point entirely. i can't simply tell you that silence is deafening. you may superficially nod along in agreement—like a lemming—but unless you have felt and known it for yourself, unless you have heard the drumming of silence, you will never really know what i’m referring to, and always remain a lemming.
this is of profound significance. the paradoxical reality is a flicker that disrupts the linear relationship between logic and truth. it introduces a new dimension—the dimension of experience—into the old thought-structures that dominated reality. the phenomenon of paradox, through direct contact with the individual, is able to temporarily suspend the preconceived notions we all have about the world. the experience, because of its intimate nature, is often considered to be of absolute validity. paradoxically, the things that feel the most real, are often also the least understood.
* * *
a vicious circle
i have already discussed at length in previous essays the unadulterated ugliness of religion. additionally, i have gone into some detail about the inadequate shortcomings of different secular ideologies. nevertheless, i feel the tendency for many to align themselves with secularism will remain strong as ever. people will think: "i kind of get his point, but anything is better than religion!"
and they're right, it is. but by the very same token, they're also wrong, because it isn't. it is simultaneously beneficial to abandon religion and destructive to retreat into secularism. poof: our first paradox!
i am not going to go into detail about the history of religious development, but it's important that the reader have at least a vague sense of why religion first came into existence. prior to the establishment of religious traditions, humans lived in profound confusion and perpetual wonderment about the physical and psychological phenomena that pervaded their world. nothing made much sense. so naturally, they had to make things up so that they did make sense. thus, virtually every religious tradition is the allegorical representation of what people at the time thought about the world. in its earliest development, religion was the first organized attempt at spiritual transcendence, which was a natural thing. unfortunately, greed and corruption have since obliterated the one and only virtue of the religious institution.
the point is: people need religion. it is often assumed, usually by arrogant secularists, that those who turn to religion use it as a crutch; that religion is for the weak; that only the insecure find the need for religious practice. of course this isn't true, and only speaks volumes about the ignorance of the secular mind. it may be that those bound in today's religious dramas have been deceived, manipulated, and long led astray, but it doesn't devalue their desire for transcendence. this desire is innate. it has existed since the beginning. since before religion. in fact, it is only this desire that is natural about religion. it underscores everything else. the thirst for spiritual communion has been mankind's longest striving, and we still have quite a ways to go.
the truth is, everybody needs religion. the trouble is, religion has long been poisoned beyond the hope for salvation. it is no longer of value, though its goal remains valid. this is an extremely important realization. it is this delicate subtlety that many fail to observe. the secular man scoffs at the narrow mind of religion, thinking that he has somehow risen above it. the religious man, conversely, disapproves of secularism, unable to fathom a life where the 'quest for god' is abandoned in favor of earthly pleasures. of course, both men remain deeply ignorant, and nothing ever changes.
…
it is my contention that the continued proliferation of religion is directly related to, and indeed a result of, the rise of secularism. this may seem counter-intuitive at first, but only if the whole picture is not taken into account. there are two principle ways in which this works, the first of which we are all guilty of: the act of granting religion respect. this may seem like a facile conclusion, but it's implications are detrimental. the religious institution commands an immense amount of respect from secular society. respect which, incredibly, it didn't earn and doesn't deserve. of course, to catalyze religious abandonment, a great deal of respect must first be lost for the institution. however, upon departure, the minute he is out in the secular world, the newly-irreligious man bows, as others bow, in reverence of some farce idol, building, book, symbol, or sacrament.
of course, this reverence is feigned—it has to be—otherwise he wouldn't have abandoned religion in the first place. but this is the fundamental problem: the ceaseless upholding of phony respect. "to each his own" has been religion's greatest friend, and secularism's greatest failure. respect must be earned. it should never be assumed. and in the case of religion, it should promptly be revoked.
it is the responsibility of secularism to speak out against religion and religious injustices. it is not enough to simply drop out. indeed, it is damaging if you only drop out. the foolishness you have chosen to abandon deserves the full treatment of your derision! i am not simply referring to an angry shaking of the fist. voiced criticism is necessary to the eventual collapse of this feudal enterprise. avoidance simply won't do. nothing will change that way. we have to speak up! those who haven't yet been able to untangle themselves from the web of religious manipulation need our help. they are drowning in an ocean of lies, and we are showing religion respect! madness!
you do not have to go around insulting and disrespecting every religious man you know, but be aware of your attitude towards their beliefs. do not be rude, but watch your behavior. you are deeply hypocritical if your secularism does not extend into some anti-religious sentiment. it will be exceedingly difficult to do this at first. there will be much resistance. there is an entire social ethic built against it. but this makes it even more crucial that something be done. do not bite your lip when you hear someone yammer about their religion. challenge them. bring the issue to task. tactfully start a discussion. politely express your disdain and disrespect for their institutional beliefs. invite them to examine their postulations. engage them. allow them to taste their inability to reason.
i know that this position may appear harsh and uncomfortable to some, but remember what you are going up against. we are talking about religion, the oldest and coldest of deceptions. think of the children that have been victim to it. myriad children. they are religion's biggest victims. psychological oppression, physical abuse—it's criminal! this insanity must be stopped. and it can only be stopped if sufficient pressure is placed on religion by the secular world. simply picking up your marbles and walking away is the worst thing you can do. to the religious clan, this renders you weak-willed, which then works to re-affirm their own false sense of superiority and righteous indignation.
…
the second, more subtle mistake of secular society is their total neglect of the human need for spiritual transcendence. so much effort has been put into the abandonment of religion that its one essential virtue has been lost in the process. with the arrival of scientific atheism, secular society conveniently forgot why people were religious in the first place. the discoveries of science dazzled us. slowly, science replaced god. it made more sense, and we could see it. again, as was the case with religion, arrogance prevailed. we began to believe that we'd arrived at a place where we may be able to understand everything. of course, we don't understand everything. and to ruin the surprise, we never will.
blind religion breeds blind secularism. this dynamic works inevitably in favor of religion. the religious institution, though utterly corrupt and markedly without merit, continues to at least pretend to be in step with the purpose of its original conception. their promised 'communion with god' is a lot more than is available in secular society. secularism has in fact become shallow because it has stopped asking higher questions. it is no longer interested in the meaning of life, because that would be pointless—too philosophical, too religious. as a result, many people in the secular world have lost their way, indiscriminately making decisions by default. thus, the vicious circle is complete: the irreligious remains lost and so, religion proliferates, its sense of moral rectitude bloats, millions suffer, and everybody continues to live in ignorance.
* * *
spirituality: begin at the beginning
it was not until my visit to india that i seriously began to meditate on the subject of 'spirituality'. admittedly, i had previously used the term with reckless abandon, hardly having given it any significant thought. in fact, my ideas of spirituality were typically expressed in relative vagueness, routinely allowing me to take refuge in their ambiguity. meanwhile, i noticed more and more people doing the exact same thing. religious narrow-mindedness had propelled our generation towards secularism which, unsurprisingly, felt detached, dispassionate, and lacking fervor. naturally, a need for something else throbbed and thus, spirituality was born.
of course, as already discussed, this brand of spirituality is cheap, cheesy, and without substance. spawned from the same decrepit religious paradigm, it is merely the natural attempt of the agnostic to give structure to the chaos and confusion that pervade his thoughts. alas, delusion can never spawn clarity. by design, pathology will proliferate. the 'spiritual' man may coo, sometimes expertly, about his newly-found peace and harmony with the world; but this type of rhetoric is flowery, typically transparent, nakedly self-serving, and devoid of the feel for authenticity. in the end, simply deciding to exercise spirituality is a cheap trick of the mind—a strategy of the ego—that is sure to deliver plenty of feel-goodderies, but will do little to advance real spiritual development.
in order to delve into the complicated matter of what spirituality is, we must first be clear about what it is not. the commonest and most fallacious association is that spirituality is somehow related to religion. it is of utmost importance that this myth be immediately dispelled. spirituality is not religion. they are completely unrelated. anyone who begs to differ is lying or has, more likely, been misguided. in fact, religious belief and practice actually stand in direct opposition to the growth of spirituality. the authoritarian persistence of one inhibits the dynamic development of the other. unfortunately, their long-assumed affiliation makes it difficult for many to make this simple observation. by my estimation, virtually all claimed spirituality is actually either blindly religious or, its opposite, recklessly secular.
it is for this reason that india is often erroneously assumed to be a very spiritual country. indeed, india is deeply, profoundly, cowardly religious, but this has nothing to do with spirituality. by spiritual standards, india is dismally behind. i even dare to venture that america, the most politically corrupt of all western nations, has an overall more spiritual populous. but don't let this stand as a compliment to the united states, nor should it be an insult to the indian people. the truth is, we are all behind. when it comes to spiritual realization, there is nobody leading the way. we are, sadly, all losing—an entire species living in confusion and ignorance.
it's important to point out that everything i have discussed, in this and previous essays, has to some extent be (or should have been) considered partial. the reality of spiritual insight is so subtle that all manner of related discourse is vulnerable to some degree of personal bias. i am therefore faced with the difficulty of being lucid in my articulation, while trying to delicately maneuver around the great chasm of subjectivity—all the while, of course, aware of my ultimate inability to do so.
with the consumption of this grain of salt, i want to share what i have come to understand, or am beginning to understand, about this subject. consider this clever quotation (simultaneously attributed to grucho marx and ellen degeneres) which, to me, encapsulates the essence of true spirituality:
in the beginning, there was nothing.
then god said "let there be light!" ..
and there was still nothing,
but you could see it a whole lot better.
what is meant by beginning? — beginning your life? of all life? of time? of the universe?
what is meant by nothing? — a vacuum? emptiness? hollowness? darkness?
the more we try to wrestle with these questions, the more confusion is created. true spirituality is the bypassing of these quasi-intellectual fumblings in order to arrive peacefully at the answer. and the answer is simple, it is nothing; silence. there was nothing, there is nothing, and there will be nothing. spirituality is not the understanding of this nothingness, but the clarity to "see it a whole lot better."
but! intellectuals beware! the temptation to be cerebral (and closed) instead of spiritual (and open) is tantalizing. it would be much easier to label my description as nihilism and understand it, instead of relinquishing your need to understand in order to embrace the paradox. it is indeed a far-out relationship, but its reality is valid. it is paradoxically true that nothing and everything exist simultaneously. indeed, one is borne of the other. anything that can be reduced to a singularity, or isness, will integrate itself back into the whole, and further dissolve into nothing. meanwhile, only in the absence of everything—in nothingness—can the stuff of life come to fruition. such is the essence of spiritual understanding. spirituality does not fight, it flows. it is not a loud and futile grappling, but a calm and graceful embrace.
to the bewildered reader, i will admit, we're getting a little ahead of ourselves. all this talk of nothingness and the embrace of paradox and la di da is sure to seem intangible, ambiguous, and typical of the bullshit garden-variety spirituality is full of. indeed, we have started by going straight to the main course, so to speak, but i assure you, bullshit is not on the menu. the fact of the matter is that spirituality is multidimensional. in contrast to the exclusivity of religion, spiritual belief is profoundly inclusive. it seeks to unite the different facets of existence—physical and metaphysical alike. however, this unity does not always mean synthesis. things don't always match, and they don't always have to. they don't always make sense, and sometimes it's better that way. unity is not a forced integration, but an allowance of the simultaneous, symbiotic, harmonious existence of conflicting forces.
…
in order to move into spirituality, one must begin at the beginning. the perpetual failure of all religious and secular endeavors is rooted in the refusal to start fresh. this is the central challenge of becoming a more spiritual person. it will not do, indeed, it will spawn more confusion, to try and mend your specific shortcomings. it is not the beliefs you hold that cause the problems, but the belief systems —the reality—in which you operate. reality is a creation of the mind. it is through mind that the extremities of reality take shape. religion creates reality. science creates reality. family, friendship, love—they all create reality. spirituality, then, is the integration of these parallel realities into one. it is the realization that reality should be total and inclusive. thus, the process of spiritual development entails the creation of a new, total, and inclusive reality. but first, the old paradigm, the old system, the old reality must go. it must be emptied, dismissed, flushed, formatted, and forgotten. it is impossible to nurture your spirituality in a physical or psychological state of affliction. to be born into a new world, you must first be willing to die in the old one. you must be willing to start with nothing, at the beginning.
it won't be easy, but that's normal. in fact, this is inherent and applicable to all chapters and periods of human history—the resistance to change. people do not like change, even though there is millennia of evidence to suggest that it would be the best thing for them. it is inescapable. change is a constant factor. it won't stop. the universe will not experience even a moment of stagnation. it will never drag its feet. the world is in eternal flux, and moving into spirituality means building your reality so that you are ready, available, and excited to move with the change that is coming, whether you like it or not.
of course, before any of this can occur, one must deal with the important business of emptying oneself completely. this is not an easy task. it is often messy, clumsy, and requires much effort. mental-detoxification, dissolution of thought-paradigms, surrender of the ego—these are not accomplished over the weekend, but over the course of a lifetime. sometimes over the course of several lifetimes. ultimately, you must undergo a psychological death in order to arrive at the beginning. you must die. your identity must be relinquished. it must die with the old reality. only then can the process of spiritual development commence. only then can you begin to know who and what you truly are.
i am particularly fussy about this point. the foundation for true spirituality can not be nurtured in the climate of today's religious or secular ideals. many fail to observe this important criterion for transformation. they continue to build on the old. they say they want change, but they are reluctant to let their practices die with the passing of history. they cling, even if they cling cleverly, they still cling. they do it unconsciously of course, so that their intelligence is not bruised. they fashion their old ways so that they appear new. but they won't be. they can't be. this is the cunning work of the ego. its capacity to manipulate is impeccable, it is a master of deception. in order to outsmart the ego, you must stop trying to outsmart it, then you will have won the battle. when you surrender your reality, you disarm the ego of its arsenal. the ego cannot operate under this circumstance. it needs a reality to manipulate. it is here, in the absence of reality, in nothingness—at the beginning—where your real work will begin. it is only then that you are ready to understand what it means to be spiritual.
…
explained in more concrete terms, spirituality is a convergence of scientific discovery, religious exploration, and technological advancement. this may appear a forgone conclusion, and not a particularly new idea, but let us meditate on what is meant by the confluence of these forces.
in today's society, there is great division between our institutions. i have focused mainly on the religious, but the scientific, medical, technological, business, political, legal, and academic institutions are all at odds with one another. for this reason, none of them function at their best capacity. indeed, many have succumbed to corruption. and in the world of corruption, aberrant behavior abounds. for this reason, we can't simply bang them all together in hope of their instant and miraculous meshing. instead, we must discard them altogether in favor of a new replacement.
there is work to be done!
church-going scientists are not a step in the right direction, but a deep worsening of the problem. science must be redefined, its strengths and weaknesses reevaluated, its goals reoriented, and its limits understood. religion needs to undergo an even more thorough transformation. it must let go of a lot. in fact, it must let go of everything. all the ornate, superficial crap has to go. all that must remain is the desire for religious exploration. only the journey of self-discovery—a religious journey unrelated to science—must be retained. only the striving to answer the question who am i? must remain in focus. everything else is, well, history.
in the work of reorganizing these value systems, we will begin to see how they complement each other, even if they don't fit like pieces of a puzzle. life is not a puzzle. puzzles can be solved. life is not for the solving. the object is to live life, not solve it. at the edge of science, where intelligence begins to falter in the face of paradox, the lessons learned within will take over and guide your progress. conversely, in the throws of religious turmoil, the decisive nature of scientific understanding will shed profound light on the confusion. ultimately, it will be realized that science and religion aren't working together, but are actually the same thing, long-divided and ostracized from their wholeness.
science is concerned with external reality, religion with internal. ultimately, the religious and scientific traditions will cease to exist independently. their division will be seen as counter to progress. only in their unity can life flourish. eventually, we must also depend more on technology. technology is the vehicle that will carry the spiritual revolution into the future. technology is man's mark on the planet. technology is the wheel. technology is the pencil. we must use it to our benefit. it must be integrated into the philosophies that will emerge out of a more inclusive, spiritual view of the world.
indeed, i am calling for great effort. we must together rise to the challenge of redefining our world. a great shift in paradigm is required. we must be willing to die, change, and start over together. we have forgotten our purpose as human beings: to be one with life. religion has long forgotten this purpose. the commemoration of religious practice is the evidence of this. for there is no better way to forget something than by commemorating it. instead, we must remember. we must stop feeling corseted by our flawed, fractured philosophies. we must be unafraid to design new ones. out with the old, stale, and stagnant—and in with the new!
we are human beings! we are the energy source of this planet. act accordingly! bring focus to the expansion of your multidimensional existence—physical, psychological, and spiritual existence. it is our self-appointed destiny to move into wholeness. life is full of adventures. live through them. do not avoid the banging around that is necessary. remove yourself from distractions, but do not neglect the stuff of life. even when things are bad--especially when they are bad--it's a good thing! you are learning! redefine everything with every new nugget of truth. to live spiritually means to always remain open. it is through openness that change can occur. it is through openness that you may ever come to understand what is meant by the word god.
* * *
who is this god person anyway?
there is only one universal truth: god is. no dispute can be made about this point.
but, god is not anything. god only is. it is not a being, an entity, a concept, or a myth. god did not create, nor can it destroy, anything. god is not powerful, merciful, caring, or kind. god does not love you. god will not punish you. god is not watching because god doesn't care. in fact, god isn't there. god only is. any further qualification is farce. it goes without saying that god has no name, no country, no form, no rules, no wishes, no desires, and, certainly, no religion.
god only is, end of story.
and since god can only be, all other attributes commonly accredited to it—and there are a lot—are transferred from god to man. in the traditional definition, on every single count, man assumes the properties of god. (and when i say man, i am not referring to the masculine form out of convenience, but to human kind. 'man' is simply the truncated version. it is an inclusive term of reference, not excluding the feminine.) man is the authority, the decider, and the judge. man is divine. hir power is without limit. hir capacities are boundless. man is both the creator and the created, the source of energy, and the orator of circumstance. indeed, circumstance does not make the man, it reveals him to hirself. man is not a product of hir environment, the environment is the product of man!
god may be understood as that which is greater than the sum of its parts. a universal gestalt, if you like. but even this is cheating. i am using words to muddle and confuse a perfect expression. god only is. nothing more, nothing less. this realization is absolute. it hasn't anything to do with science, religion, or philosophy. it is the simple stating of the fact: god is.
of course, it would be easier to simply replace this pregnant word-symbol for something with a little less glamor. "all that is", for instance, would be a fitting replacement. however, i like the word 'god'. it is so intrinsic to our language that i prefer to fix it and use it. but remember, any form of personification will shatter the sublime reality of god. the matter must be dealt with utmost delicacy, with elegance, with grace. 'grace' is another word-symbol that would be a fitting replacement. 'love' is yet another.
in accordance with this, you are no longer required to believe in god. how can you? it is impossible. you cannot believe in something that is. it is! it requires no belief, no leap of faith, no stretching of the imagination. you do not have to pray to god, talk to god, or live for god. in fact, it is perfectly okay to forget god completely. it won't make any difference. god will continue to be, plain and simple. don't expel so much of your energy trying to grapple with the totality of god. that is idiocy, the foolish business of religion. instead, live in abundance. fill your life with love. surround yourself with it so that it reaches every corner and crevice of your being. be so full of love that it spills into every detail of your life. feel the joy! relish the ecstasy! move into compassion. follow your bliss. it matters not what you do, but that you do it with the whole of your being in consensus. the details are irrelevant. it matters little whether you move through prayer and meditation or song and dance. if done with love, with grace, it will lead to god. belief in god is never encouraged because it is impossible. the reality of god is an experience, not a belief. in the ocean of events, god will reveal itself. and when it does, no resistance will be met. you will not be coming to terms with something new, but coming home to that which you already knew. when one has the fortune to finally know god, all else will seem eclipsed.
* * *
what is there to be done?
how does one proceed?
for starters: relax, calm down, and breath. it was once said that the whole of humanity's problems are rooted in man's inability to breath properly. this is not some cute metaphor of the human condition, but its reality! indeed, everything you ever want to know about life is evident in this basic human function. breathing requires a constant state of being present. you can only breath in the moment that exists, and so, you will exist in that moment also. breathing is living. and breathing properly is living in divinity. go ahead, it's okay, you can breath.
of course, there isn't any particular formula, path, or course of action that i can simply point to and say 'do that.' action is often required, but it is the final stage of manifestation. action is the conclusion, and it is of no use to try and forcibly change a conclusion. it is much wiser to instead examine the premises. change the premises, and new conclusions will form and flow without resistance.
thus, it is not with action, intention, or desire that i am concerned, but with courage. it will be through courage that one is truly able to move towards spiritual development. the prevailing traditions of our societies will prove stubborn obstacles on the road less traveled, and so great courage is required. this means being fearless—utterly unafraid—of being wrong. people live opposite to this! they are petrified of being wrong. they create entire dramas, they waste entire lives, in order to conceal the trail of their wrongdoings. most people would rather be silent than wrong. they would rather remain uncalled and in company, than called on and alone. what level of supine indolence we have managed to reach! a fantastic pity.
to have the courage to be wrong means the possibility of being right. you must follow your heart, your intuition, your sense of divine guidance. i am not encouraging the making of mistakes, but if one is always afraid of making a mistake, he will never do anything but. life is not without a sense of irony. if you are afraid of making mistakes, you will continue to make them. if you grow into courage, the successes of your life will triumph and overwhelm the isolated incidences of blunder. indeed, it is through those very blunders that you will have grown. in retrospect, they will appear priceless, invaluable, and inevitable.
but courage is not easy. it takes effort, devotion, dedication. even courage is required for courage! the world is full of those who move quickly to yell i can do it too! this is never said in courage, but always in fear. i can do it too—perhaps a little better, faster, smaller, sleeker, and more efficient—but i can do it too! any fool can do it too. man's curse is his desire to do it too. his calling, however, his craft, is not to follow this plebeian mold, but to venture out of it. it is he who claims look what i can do! that is living with courage. it is this desire to be different, to express individuality, to be the creator you've come forth to be, that separates courage from cowardice.
…
with courage, of course, comes great power. and with great power—it was Tolstoy who said it first—comes great responsibility. indeed, you are responsible for everything that happens in your life. incredibly, people don't realize this. most people place the burden of responsibility on a whole variety of different things. they blame family, friends, spouses, history, culture, society, money, government, television, religion, school, war, racism, sexism, classism, terrorism, communism, fascism, capitalism, business, disease, evil, luck, and fate—but never themselves. they are never to blame, and that's the problem.
from here on in, always and in all circumstances, assume responsibility. if something is wrong, assume it is wrong with you, concede that you were at fault. take the blame for every last trivial thing that happens. never blame the world. the world is perfect. it is you that must change with it, not the other way around. be the change that you wish to see in the world. with practice, you will learn that a simple shifting of your perspective will in fact, sometimes drastically, change the reality being perceived. this is how life is created. this is the process of spiritual development.
and this responsibility is of colossal implication. it means: if you are always to blame for all that ever goes wrong in your life, you are also the source of all that ever goes right. you are the fountain from which all of life springs. you are the creator. you are god. there is no one else but you. it is only you. and when you defer this profound responsibility, when you pass the buck on life, you also relinquish all the power that comes with it. they go hand in hand. no responsibility, no power. no power, no responsibility. unfortunately, this constant and cyclical surrender of power and responsibility has become the norm in our culture. it is deeply ingrained as the status quo. in fact, the playing out of this drama is a perpetual committing of spiritual suicide. it renders a person powerless, helpless, weak, petty, poor, and placid—as good as dead. alive, in fact, only in the waiting for death.
…
yet another demonstration of change is the commitment to the establishment of community. real community. over the years, a world of injustice has been done to the dynamics of true community. indeed, its attainment is now a rare and exceptional phenomenon. millions, no—billions of people will be quick to think they are to some degree involved in community. alas, to burst a billion little bubbles all at once, it is my contention that this is an illusion, and, at best, such congregations are pseudo-communities.
extensive research has been done by american psychologist m. scott peck on this particular subject. his articulate and provocative analysis of what is meant by community, and how it may be attained, is best elucidated in his book "a different drum." essentially, the contention is that community is an environment where growth and healing are nurtured precisely because they aren't forced. real community is dynamic, organic, without structure, vulnerable, and above all—inclusive. real communities squabble, they are not always polite. politeness prevents community. it maintains neutrality and is deployed to defuse potentially awkward situations. it may be comfortable and easy, but it is not community.
to attain and grow into community, its members must be committed to experiencing a great deal of confusion, frustration, and chaos. community does not make decisions by democracy, but by consensus. people must be willing to open themselves up and allow their vulnerability to be embraced. similarly, they are required to do the same of fellow members. true community, dr. peck insists, is greater than the sum of its parts, and i agree. the attainment of community, like spiritual development, first requires a necessary dying, in this case a group dying, so that community may flourish in the absence of competing egos.
…
something must also be said of ritual and tradition. in my assault on religion, i have called for the cessation of all religious ritual and practice. i stand firmly by this. however, it is important to realize that it is the religiosity that my dissent is aimed at, not the practice of ritual. indeed, ritual can be a powerful thing, and we must not lose sight of this fact.
ceremonies, symbols, and ritualistic practice cannot, must not, and will not be obliterated. instead, they must be transformed. and this transformation must, of necessity, be the personal endeavor of each individual. be the designer of your own benediction! people's rituals and practice do not have to be the same. how can they be the same when people are so different? we must strive to express our individuality, not seek to hide it in mass displays of conformity.
design new rituals. architect a new, personal liturgy. be creative! use your imagination! make it a fun and purposeful process. if others wish to emulate you, that is their business, not yours. your divinity, your rights of passage, are conducted by your hand, not theirs. think of the brilliant contrast that will rise out of this process. if people are left free, more accurately—if they realize that they are free—to practice as they wish, the world would attain a whole new degree of richness. the variety of our experience would flourish in folds.
this can also be applied to places of worship. why be obsessed with antiquity!? how is a meadow at dusk any less holy that a church on sunday? how is the beach any less sacred? if you want to worship god, worship the planet, not the building. and why is your home not your place of worship? make your home your sanctuary! make it beautiful, divine, sacred. make it so that your very being there fills you with a sense of satisfaction.
more fundamental still, what of your body? your body is your temple! no other temple is required, you already have one. cherish, worship, and celebrate your body. take care of your body. be gentle, kind, and loving to your body. it is your home! it is your only place of refuge and solitude. fall in love with your body, and every church, temple, mosque, and monastery will pale in comparison. this process, you are hopefully beginning to realize, has no end. it is endless. the possibilities are endless. more freedom, more choice. more choice, more freedom. until what? until a crescendo is reached. until man's individual fulfilment reaches epic proportions. a point will come where so many people will have been spiritually transformed that they will carry the whole of humanity with them. that is what evolution is. the shift in the collective paradigm is the simple butterfly effect of individual transformation.
…
finally, not enough can be said about love. not in this essay, not in any essay.
love is everything. it is through love than we can achieve anything. the fastest, surest, most direct path to god is through love. fall in love, and you will know god. simple as that. love one, love all, and love unconditionally. love yourself first, love yourself fully, and the rest will fall in line. they say true love is blind. because true love is love for the whole of existence. and in the totality of all that is, love makes no distinctions, has no boundaries, and knows no limits. it simply goes on loving.
if you love someone, and they don't love you back, love them even more. that is what love is. those who deserve love the least are the ones who need it the most. the beauty of love is that it yields instant results. love, and you will feel it. immediately you will feel it. and you will be compelled to love more. love is contagious. it is like a massive tidal wave. it builds incredible momentum. and the more momentum it builds, the bigger, faster, heavier it becomes. it engulfs all that comes in its path. love has no beginning, no middle, and no end. it is a constant, an eternal virtue, forever valid, and present in every moment of existence.
* * *
my name is shayan. i am thirty-three years old. and i'm hurtling through a bout of existential anxiety just like many others.
my trying to come to grips with the nature of existence routinely moves me to write about it. my capacity to be articulate is, by itself, a useless talent. it is ideas, not words, that can change the world. my intention is not to write manifestos and diatribes, but to open the lines of communication. what i have said is what i believe. it is truth, but it is my truth. what do you believe? what is your truth? how can your beliefs help the development of mine?
i want to be crystal clear: i am no expert in all this. i am simply having a go at it. i'm young(ish), impressionable, naïve. i want to share my confusion. i want to celebrate it. and i want others to celebrate theirs with me. my ideas are bound to change and evolve as i grow into them. one day, they may even prove blind and shortsighted. but i am not afraid to express them. they are here—raw, rampant, and uncut. this is it, this is the best i am able to do.
the universe—a friend told me—is up to something.
i don't know what it is,
but i'm determined to figure it out.