I ended my first book with the words "no answer". I know now, Lord, why you utter no answer. Before your face questions die away. What other answer would suffice? Only words, words; to be led out to battle against other words.
That was, hands down, the most moving piece of literature I've ever consumed.
I feel embattled in my quest for God. I don't need that kind of guidance. The world unaided provides more than enough resistance along the path I've chosen. I appreciate good intentions for what they are, but mine isn't a journey bound by the logic of this world. In all mundane matters, my thirst for knowledge and the necessity to apply the full power of my mundane logic are married into one, but this matter, by its very nature, cannot be based in logic. When its foundation is laid, all manner of logic might flow forth from it, but the fact itself to which I have committed is in a plane separate and distinct from all human thought.
To that end, what is the virtue in pressing me to seek out "both sides" of an argument which does not exist? All the mind I have is set into that desire, and I am beginning to think our entire lives are dedicated to that purpose, but it seems to me dangerous to condescend anyone but a child or a fool by thrusting upon him that which he hasn't seen (or can't yet see) for himself. If the man has any passion for the matter, it can only serve to drive a wedge between him and his concerned benefactor; worse still, the lesson stands to be lost in translation.
Even still, I'm worried about what lies behind this. You urge me to look to both sides of the story told on Earth. Let that be my concern. If you agreed with me, would you still urge me to seek out the "truth"? We must presuppose Euclid or Aristotle or Newton or Einstein to have theorized correctly before we can delve into any number of our modern activities, and we do so regularly. Do you, then, urge me to look to both sides of these stories for truth? So why the passionate disposition in this matter? Yours is not a proselytizing ideology. What is the motivation for ensuring that I've heard both sides before I make any decisions? Given my choice, what do I stand to lose if I'm wrong? Even if your advice may indeed change my mind, to what end?
Again, I enjoy challenges to my philosophical, scientific, physical, and artistic endeavors. I often seek them out. My spiritual journey does not share a roof with any of these facets of life. They are mortal. This walk is difficult, almost impossible to bear at times. I will bear those burdens which God sees fit that I should endure, and no less, but neither do I seek any more.
These are my misgivings. I struggled to author them, and they are infantile and confused. They could be said to be addressed to the world at large, and in fact they are, but they are obviously more direct than that as well. I pray these words are well met where they fall, for they are only those. Words. I use them here to deliver human love to human ears. These words exist for that purpose. They fall short in communicating that which exists outside our nature. That is a conversation reserved for a time when all the experiences and the lessons life has to impart upon us have expired; that is to say, Till We Have Faces.
1 comment:
Dear, darling Adam,
Of course I hear these words with the love that they were meant. I can only hope you heard mine in the same way.
Mine is not a proselytizing religion at all...no. And my words were not meant as such.
I seek. It is what I do. When I began seeking...I did as I recommended to you...I looked at both sides of the "argument". And I have recommended others who DO in fact agree with me to do the same.
When I found my path, I had to know what others would say to me to prove my beliefs wrong....only so that I could solve those arguments to MY satisfaction in my own head. At the end of the day, hon, that's ALL that matters.
Do you understand it and believe it with all your heart, even when the facts fall on "the other side"?
Those are matters of faith. You're right. Logic has no part in this discussion. It is what I told B when relating our discussion to him. But those were the confines YOU placed on our initial discussion last week. :) Not me. You seemed to want to keep it on the scientific level and hold to it a degree of logic to control the discussion. I complied, however confusing that made it. For all of us involved. Because the bottom line is: when discussing matters of faith...they are just that ... matters of FAITH. And no logic will ever apply...to either side. Religion, faith, spirituality can never be dissuaded logically because, by their very design, they are not based in logic, or science or mathematics or any other quantitative or qualitative segment of the brain, the soul, the heart....they are BELIEFS. And ALL that will ever matter at the end of the day, sweetie, is: Do you believe? If you can say yes...then all arguments, all nay-saying falls away. Along with all science. When all is said and done, it is simply, "I believe.".
And thus, the arguments become moot. You cannot ever argue a point when it is based in belief. And I saw no point in our controlling the discussion last week in points of science when it was, is and ever shall be impossible to argue these particular points in such a fashion. But those were the rules you imposed, so those were the rules I obeyed. Hence, the frustrations.
I love you. I love you no matter what your belief system. I am NOT trying to "convert" you or make you feel badly for your beliefs. I can only hope you will do (or will not do) the same. (Such as the, "You are going to Hell." type comments that so many seem so willing to bandy about.)
With all my love,
Namaste,
A
Post a Comment