We don't know we're looking at darkness unless we've seen light. We wouldn't know sorrow if we didn't know joy. Without a down, there can be no up. How did Adam and Eve know they were living in paradise if they'd never lived anywhere else or in any other condition to compare it to? In order to have an awareness of "I," one has to be able to perceive one's self as separate from whatever else might exist. So, if God (the All of Creation) is the all of everything, how does it know it is everything if there isn't a "nothing" or a non-everything to compare itself to? And what of the concept of "Am?" How would I know that I AM if I had never experienced an "I am NOT?"
I once thought I had the answer to this. I believed that the instant the All of Creation grasped the concept of "I AM," it fragmented. This is still a relatively naive or primitive concept because the All of Creation doesn't think - CAN'T think in order to simply fully accept its condition of existence. The concept of "I AM" seems to reflect a complete awareness of existence. It doesn't judge, label, limit, or value the condition of existence in any manner or to any degree. But still, I have to consider the "I" and the "AM" as opposed to what else?
I've come to see the error in my logic. Ironically, it's that it's logic. Thinking is an act of ego, regardless of how kind, loving, compassionate, all-encompassing, or enlightening the thoughts might be. They're still thoughts.
"I am, therefore I think."
"I think, therefore I am."
Thinking requires an awareness of self which requires the acknowledgment of the condition that non-self exists. This is the basis of duality - the basis of all fragmentation. Fragmentation is ego. Ego is nothing more than fragmentation. Since, in my belief system, God isn't fragmented, then God has no thought and isn't aware that it has no thought. Using this rationale, one can consider that God is more a condition of "Not" than a condition of "Is."
As I ponder the condition of thinking, I come to understand the necessity of duality - of ego. In order for me to understand that which IS, I must also be able to grasp the concept of that which is NOT. But, is this embracing and accepting the condition of ego or merely rationalizing its existence? As I more fully ponder the condition of thinking, I come to understand that all one must do is BE.
God IS.
Problem solved. Fragmentation, duality, ego, become moot, especially when I stop thinking about them. Right?
Wrong.
I have to ask, what created the condition of existence to begin with? OR, is existence merely a concept of the mind?
4/13/2008
0 comments:
Post a Comment