Dibloggenes explains the universe in a mere 1,070 words

Here's the second comment from Dibloggenes that I've elevated to the profound status of a Church of the Churchless blog post. (I can hear the typing of Dibloggenes as he redoes his resume to include this newfound honor; the first elevated blog post is here.)

I admire any and all attempts to explain the universe, especially when they clock in at a sparse 1,070 words. The Bible, Newton's Principia, and Darwin's Origin of Species are all much longer. And, without the occasional bursts of humor that make Dibloggenes' treatise more sparkly than it would otherwise be.

One reason I like what follows is that it mentions the One so often. If your interest in the One is stimulated by Dibloggenes, clearly your best move is to buy my book, "Return to the One: Plotinus's Guide to God-Realization." I can't guarantee that the One will be pleased with this, but I sure will be.

Enjoy...

And now, as previously threatened: The Universe Explained for Dummies. These are my own conclusions to date, subject to revision at any time. They have been abbreviated to allow the reader less of a commitment to follow along. I have placed these under four topic headings to make it easier to dismiss large chunks of my thinking at one fell swoop.

THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM
1) In a universe that requires material (or attenuated material) bodies to manifest the limitless creative urge of the One, by necessity this involves conflict, i.e., the introduction of the no longer unitary awareness. This is a concomitant of the polarities we see everywhere, and that have been philosophized about for 3000 years, give or take.

2) We are steeped in the appearance of “individuation.” This is prior to individuality, which is a showing forth of those tendencies we associate with personality. Individuation is simply the atomizing of everyone and everything into constituent parts. Our senses report at a level in normal consciousness that what we perceive is real, but actually it is an abstraction. If we could see at the energetic level ( more than a few claim this ability) we would understand foreground and background, player and play are really all just one.

3) Human beings have truly made God in man’s own image. Believers are so wedded to the idea of a personal God that they are horrified at the suggestion this may not be true. Test it yourself: you’ll find folks are more gracious to quiet atheism than they are to a quiet belief in an impersonal deity. And what is that, but no more than the One, the unitary consciousness, that which precedes any individuation at any level, conceivable or not.

FROM THAT FLOWS
A personal God is a god...

1) Who is free to pick winners and losers; 2) to have chosen people and nations as His main squeeze; 3) to appeal to as if He were deaf and dumb to our needs; 4) who will remain forever an enigma to us as the problem of the origin of evil is one that monotheism never has been able to satisfactorily scrape from the bottom of its shoe.

Instead, think Universal/Unchangeable/Immutable Law. This Law subsumes all lesser laws, known and unknown, on all levels of manifested existence. Magic is the conscious or unconscious understanding and application of the Law, either in white (selfless) or black (selfish) flavors. The vast majority of humankind practice gray magic throughout their life, alternating between white and black as their lower faculties buffet them.

The One IS the Law; the One is A collective dynamic, for lack of a better term, that is inexorable in its workings. All justice, all mercy, all vengeance, all indifference are contained within it in exquisite balance. Appealing to It is pointless, as it already has done the math and set in motion the sequence of events most conducive to the ends of the One. When miracles happen after prayers are made, it is because the faithful harnessed the Law, albeit without their knowing it.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF EARTH LIFE?
Assuming there IS a purpose, I propose it is the conscious re-integration of the faux individual personality into a unfettered experience of unity with the One, an oceanic immersion that overwhelms our sense of isolated individuality. Sound familiar? Sure it does; it’s been preached by esoteric schools and natural mystics for thousands of years. It also dovetails nicely with the idea if we are looking for the anchor that keeps us in the world’s harbor, look to individuation. Examine it, turn it to and fro and really understand what it is...and what it is not.

Our individuality, from life to life, seems to be as substantial as leaves, twigs and grass that are swirled together in a stream by the various eddies and vortexes. This flotsam comes together due to obeying certain laws of fluid dynamics, but there is no substantial reality to this observed instance. It may drift downstream, or break up before our eyes.

Was it real? Yes. What was the purpose? None we may discern. What happened to the wreckage when it dissolved? Went their separate ways, perhaps to reunite, perhaps never to be in contact again. Why would we care if “we” don’t continue since the vast majority of humanity have no recollection of anything more than early childhood. The cases of seeming recall of a previous life is more interesting as it brings into focus the question, “What is doing the remembering here?”

TORA! TORA! TORA! DERA! DERA! DERA!
How do the above conclusions pertain to the value of participating in Sant Mat, and RSS Beas flavor? I believe the Audible Lifestream is an authentic account of how humans may experience a direct connection with the Law, that foundation and organizing principle of all creation.

For anyone who cares to spend the time assaying the world’s esoteric literature and reports of mystics, it appears to me to be a foregone conclusion that concept is a more or less accurate representation of a phenomenon foreign to all but a relative few.

However, for those few, I do not doubt the authenticity of that experience. In fact, how we choose to engage with this Word—when once we are made aware of it—is the crux of the question of participation in the most important activity we will ever undertake in this life.

Do we need a guru to connect us to it? Some gurus say yes, some gurus say no. What is the appropriate response if we believe our Contact may not be of the caliber we assumed was required? The truth is, each one of us by necessity must own our beliefs. Who calls us, who is worthy, what sect or branch do we trust, why am I feeling shaky on this path?

We can’t escape the need to erect a superstructure of beliefs, whether they originate within ourselves, are influenced by the thinking of others, or blindly follow someone who claims insights that we don’t possess. Those who claim no religious beliefs have expressed their own beliefs. This is an unavoidable and inevitable outcome. The question is, what will be our response to it?

If you’ve read this far, please use the code VISINE 2022 upon checkout to help with the eyestrain you are probably experiencing. Have a great Sunday!

Comments

[Ron E.]

The title of this blog: - ‘Dibloggenes explains the universe in a mere 1,070 words’. And also, Dibloggenes opening statement: - “The Universe Explained for Dummies. These are my own conclusions to date, subject to revision at any time,” is refreshingly honest and forthright.

Well, such an explanation of the universe is as good as any that I’ve read in esoteric literature in the past. Though if it does require an explanation, I think I’d still rather wait for the science one – if it ever comes - but in truth, not actually anticipating one, I’m happy to be here to simply witness the universe and its effects.

‘D’ talks of the ‘Audible Lifestream’, which I understand is to do with the ‘word’, or ‘logos’ (“In the beginning was the word or logos.”) with its translational links to God – and also principle. To consign the origins of the universe to God or the first principle is fine. I also like the term Tao as it gives nothing away but invites us to just live with the ‘what is’ of life: -
“The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao;
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth;
The Named is the mother of all things.”
Similar to the ‘One’ that ‘D’ and Brian talk of and which perhaps also reflects the Buddhist concept of nothingness.

My intent is not to have the universe explained but to realise the connection to it all and to see what it is that would keep me in the state of separation. To this end, I believe that which stands in the way is the ego/mind, with its progeny the self and with the realisation of what it is and how it divides us from the rest of creation questions of the origins of things become academic. The Buddha spoke of such discussions where he spoke of agreeing with the wise (pandita) of the world (men of learning, science in today’s parlance) about what exists and does not exist as such debate does to not lead to enlightenment, peace and awakening.

[Dibloggenes]

I also like the term Tao as it gives nothing away but invites us to just live with the ‘what is’ of life: -
“The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao;
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth;
The Named is the mother of all things.”

We are in accord. If I had to pick one book, one treatment of the Great Mystery over all others to try to understand and live by, it would be that of the Tao Te Ching. A near-perfect example of the balance of practical wisdom, reverence for the unspeakably sacred in Life, and leaving undone that which does not require doing.

Well said, Ron...

[Schmuckabybaby]

"One" = "God" = same difference

So who's trying to kid who?

[Dibloggenes]

"One" = "God" = same difference
So who's trying to kid who?

I find the term "God" has been so abused that its use implies the made-in-our-image model, at least to me. How you think of something will condition what you think of it. I find that the term God is very limiting personally, as it objectifies what is by all accounts incomprehensible perceptually.

I am trying to get in the habit of thinking and using the term the One Law. It may be more awkward, but it has an abstractive color to it that really does allow me to get away from a thing called God. Laws are, by nature, abstractions; they are representative of processes that do not conjure up a specific image. In this way, "the One Law" can carry as much water as our bucket will hold without falling into too many debates about what a container actually is…or the nature of water.

***Schmuckabybaby: This is a great name; it's like having Shecky Greene wade in on the nature of the divine!