I haven't felt pulled to the computer lately. matter of fact, I'm not enjoying my time on it too much.
Guess it's part of the zen feeling I've been not thinking about lately.
I just read "Tomorrow's God" by Neale Donald Walsch
a great and inspiring book, but I found it to be a little oversimplified & shortsighted.
Between this book & the Daniel Quinn books I think I could make a good outline of what I feel they do not cover or that I feel I could elaborate on in ways that they do not see & end up writing my book.
While I was reading Tomorrow's God, I kept feeling as if he was saying things that I've been thinking & talking a little bit about over the lst few years, but Walsch was saying them in a much narrower context, not recognizing the fact that he contradicts himself in believing that God is infinite yet he goes on to explain that maybe everyone should have electricity & have what one could consider "civilized" means of living. This COMPLETELY ignores the fact that there are other ways of being that represent differing paths to the oneness of the new spirituality that he is presenting. He seems to maintain the western ethic of "I know what's good for you" while trying to let go of it at the same time & I felt that he never resolved this conflict of thought. He is also extremely short sighted & simplistic when he purports that humans already know how to solve all of our problems. he makes simplistic statements about us having solved some major dilemmas we face but gives NO examples & does not recognize the fact that there is a difference between a solution that works long term & a solution that works right now.
His philosophy is headed in the right direction, but he doesn't quite make it to where he seems to be heading.
I'll just say that this is the first book that I think I am going to actively mark up - that is -footnote & add to, as I find that it is very very incomplete. The problem that I continually find with this type of philosophy/ belief (and this stands for both walsch & quinn) is that they always seem to fall for the lowest instead of the highest.
I'll explain it like this...
both present unity consciousness, so to speak. Quinn in the form of animism, taking a more secularized route of explanation & rooting it in the material world; Walsch in an almost taoist form but still latching tightly onto the anthropomorphic idea of deity. Both describe a oneness that flows through all things.I agree with them on that. Where I differ is in the description. To both of these authors, the idea that humans are not holy, that they are the same as the animals, is an important point. They are correct, but they use an extremely negatively loaded language to describe something that is miraculous when described in the proper light. I understand their reactionary stance is due to certain civilized humans exploiting the idea of humans being MORE holy or divine than the rest of the material world, which has led to a profaning of the interactions between humans and the rest of creation, which is in their philosophy, separate from themselves (I believe they are mistaken in this belief). The way in which W & Q present their oneness ideas is done in a judgmental language which is meant to chastise humans for their arrogance. I believe this is wrongheaded.
I would explain it like this. It's not that humans are any LESS divine, holy, etc., but that everything else is just as divine as we are. NO THING IS HOLIER OR MORE DIVINE THAN ANYTHING ELSE.
It is the only thing one can believe if they believe in oneness, or in a god that is all things, all knowing, etc.
for there can be no thing that is not god. Even a pile of crap is god.
Why do I believe this? Because pragmatically, it is the ONLY spiritual belief that can lead to living in harmony with the natural systems of which we are a part of. It only follows that if everything is seen as divine, that our relationships to everything will change. If one understands that every bit of packaging, every bit of fuel, every single person, plant, animal, and earth are all manifestations of god, how can one be so thoughtless & profane in the way in which they treat such things? This is the inner answer to the outer problem of lack of recognition between differences. We are all manifestations of the one that is all things. This One manifests in infinite forms. That is it's very nature. (it is actually incorrect to use a pronoun to describe "it") To be against any of these manifestations (to be against ANYTHING, actually) is to be against the oneness that connects everything. We must understand that everything external is a representation of something that needs to be worked on internally. We need to stop looking for outward solutions & lookin inside. and to stop using outer technologies in an attempt to solve internal problems.
All in all though, I thought that Walsch's book is a great starting point for those who are of a more traditional religious persuasion. One step at a time.
There are a gazillion takes on reality & the truth & when it comes down the survival of our species, we really need to start looking deep & asking how these beliefs affect our survivability...figure out "what works" and what does not. The main key in being critical of all belief systems is to ask whether or not the main tenet is unconditional love/ oneness. if not, it's probably more of a political system disguised as spirituality being used to control mass populations (or smaller groups too)
I'm currently reading Bodhidharma: the Greatest Zen Master by Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh.
I'm diggin the zen. good stuff, but yet again, I find myself being more broadminded (of course, in zen one is attempting to enter a state of no-mind).
There just ends to be a sense of ignoring the fact that one must eat when it comes to pure spiritual philosophy.
anyway..enough jibber jabber for now.
still gotta get gardening pics together.
like I said, not really enjoying the computer lately, so, maybe i'll get motivated to tweak pics, maybe not...we'll see later