x>x>-O- is and the rest is commentary…-O- is the Ultimate Paradox… All -O-images are Incomplete…Thinking there is One True Confession confuses belief in a particular -O-image with faith in the Isness of the Source of the -O-images...Not only is -O- grander than we imagine, -O- is grander than we can imagine…

x>I have been reading your conversations for some time now. I have to confess I have a different take on what you are saying now as opposed to then. At first I assumed your ‘Incompleteness’ concept was a slam against religion in general. What I see now is a critique of a religious attitude in particular. You criticize the idea that a group has a truth for everyone, yet you are doing the same, are you not?

As paradoxical as it sounds, I am, with the difference being that I’m yapping That -O- is while others yap about What -O- is. I propose these ideas for consideration and further discussion, for as I’ve often said, Spirituality is a uniter in that we believe, while Theology is a divider in what we believe. There has been talk in some Christian circles of an ‘ecumenical movement’ as if this concept is purely Christian. These people are looking at the idea in a limited scope by doing it this way. If we take ecumenical to its logical conclusion, it stands to reason all Faiths can be included as all Faiths have their particular -O-image. 

I’m not suggesting we stop yammering about whatness, for by sharing, we get a bigger picture. I am suggesting we stop misusing our respective -O-images as clubs to beat each other up.  Each of our images is finite and no one finite is closer to The Truth than any other finite. There is one thing that can be said of -O- that is true - ‘Is’ and the rest are the mythos we tell each other around our respective campfires. We need to start from ‘this is what -O- is like’ in our theological discussions to keep us from going into Idolatry. One can understand another’s stance without having to accept it and it is Mutual Understanding that can lessen strife among Believers.

As far as I’m concerned, the only ‘wrong’ theology is the Theology of Hate, which is political rather than religious.This is where the proponents of the Single Confession make their mistake, for they assume the Confession must be about the Whatness. All they accomplish by this is to paint a picture of the sun on the window hoping nobody sees the real sun, for the real truth is “That -O- Is”, not “What -O- is.” It seems to me there is a fear in some circles to see that -O- is much grander than what is portrayed in the Bible, leading to accusations that different -O-images are images of different -O-s, which is no more than semantics. You talk about -O- from one perspective and I from another, but we are both talking about the same Reality. It is this Reality we have a Single Confession about.

x>x>There is one thing that can be said of -O- that is true - ‘Is’ and the rest are the mythos we tell each other around our respective campfires…One can understand another’s stance without having to accept it and it is Mutual Understanding that can lessen strife among Believers.

x>I find it confusing that you talk about a truth, but you do not talk about a church.

One problem with the spontaneous nature of my mystical experiences is that I do not belong to any one school of thought. If someone wishes to learn from a Sensei, they follow the path set out before them - ‘This is how I learned it. If you wish to learn it for yourself, do this and that.’ You learn from those who went before and follow a map, as it were. With the traditional approach, the question is ‘How do I get there?’ while my question is more like ‘How do I show others how to get here?’

I have come across some tricks to help smooth the way for the experience, but I cannot teach them without touching upon Zen. I cannot call myself a Zennist although others have. I cannot endorse the Zen path as that is not the one I traveled. Although I sometimes call myself a Taoist, it is more like a Taoist explanation of where I’m at without saying how I got here. While I often talk about -O- in what sounds like Hinduism, I cannot say that is the Total Truth, no matter how good it feels emotionally. There are times one must discuss -O- in the Feminine aspect, requiring one to talk of the Goddess - I suppose at those times you could call me a Celtic Taoist.

Elsewhere we have discussed my respect for certain areas of Christian Philosophy. I respect much of what my Jewish friends have to say but I cannot do more than join them in the Hyphen Nation.One of the threads I tried to start a long time ago (before Internet) was along the lines of ‘what would you ask -O- if you had the right to ask one question?’ If I had to chance to question Him, I would ask him why He gave me the mystical path. There are no regrets, don’t get me wrong; however, it is hard to tell someone how to get here when I got teleported and have no idea how it happened. Sometimes I find it real aggravating that He would pull that kind of practical joke on me and have to fight the desire to smack Him upside the back to the head. It is real frustrating that I do not have a “Tradition” to fall back onto when attempting to talk about this stuff, for like I said in the talk about the faith of Jesus and the Religion about Jesus, the ‘Problem of Authority’ is sure to raise its ugly head.

x>x> You learn from those who went before and follow a map, as it were. With the traditional approach, the question is ‘How do I get there?’ while my question is more like ‘How do I show others how to get here?’

x>Why not draw your own map? The terrain is all the same, as you have said before. One more trail on the map will not hurt.

If I did attempt a map, it would have to be a three dimensional holographic image in order to show all the commonalities we share and it would more than likely look like a tree. The roots of the tree would represent mystical experience, the trunk representing belief in the Divine, the major branches representing various theologies, minor branches representing various schools of thought, the twigs representing various denominations, and the leaves representing the believers.

One uniting factor in all Faiths is a belief in the Divine and it is from this central belief that we all branch out. Take Christianity, for example. The branch called Roman Catholicism may be a different branch on the tree of Christianity, but it is still part of the same trunk as the Southern Baptist and the Quaker. Theravada, Mahayana, and Zen Buddhists may be on different branches, but they are on the tree of Buddhism. Ultimately, each Faith is a different branch of the same tree, for the Taoist, the Hindu, and the Muslim all have faith in the Divine. As I have said many times, we all have faith in the Is part, we just differ on the What part.Being able to draw a map depends on knowing how one got to that point. What does an eight year old know about traversing the mystical path?

At the time of my initial experiences, all I knew of religion was the Presbyterian church my grandparents went to and the Baptist church my mom sent us kids to. All that was on my mind concerning matters of religion at the time was the differences in the teaching of the two churches concerning -O-’s Nature. A spot on a map indicates one has traveled a path that goes from point ‘A’ to point ‘B’, but I cannot fill in the from - to area of the map. For me, it was more like the transporter in Star Trek, one instant I was there and all the sudden I was here.

I must reiterate that ‘here’ and ‘there’ are misleading terms. This idea that using the terms ‘here’ and ‘there’ in the Spiritual sense as being equal to using them in the Physical sense is what leads people to assume a map is needed to facilitate their ‘arrival’ in Nirvana. It all stems from our view of the metaphysical as ‘beyond’, as I talked about elsewhere. Heaven, Nirvana, Moksha, Satori, or whatever you want to call it, is an internal state of mind, not some ‘place’ in some outer dimension. The terms ‘here’ and ‘there’, used in Spiritual language, are relative, as are ‘particle’ and ‘wave’, when used in Quantum Mechanical language - it all depends on how you look at it in the latter and what you make of it in the former. As put in Buddhist terms, “Samsara is Nirvana”; the Sacred and the Profane are continuous territory, in other words.

Rather than draw a map, I’m more interested in compiling a thesaurus. The Divine is the Divine, whether one is discussing it from a Christian or a Taoist perspective. Salvation may mean one thing to a Buddhist and something else to a Jew, but the idea of Salvation is a common concept. One thing that saddens me is the common assumption that if one does not believe in the Biblical Image, one does not believe in -O- at all. This is especially true in Christian thought, where the argument is limited to Believers against Atheists, which are but two of the many participants in the discussions at St. Pete’s Bar and Grille.

Not having traversed a path to get here, I can see where we all are talking about the same mountain, just from various sides.The problem I have with maps is they imply competition, which is a wrongheaded approach as far as I’m concerned. Spirituality should be a uniter in that we believe, not a divider by what we believe. I’m not concerned that our friend over there is Jewish, this friend here is a Wiccan, that person over there is Buddhist, and so forth, what I’m concerned is in the sharing finite images of the Infinite with each other, agreeing to disagree in the details.

Whatever this Reality we call -O- actually is, the terms God, G-d, Allah, Dharmakaya, Brahman, Tao, and so forth, are all equally Incomplete, for they are finite while -O- is Infinite. It is absurd to take the stance “This and only this is what God Is.” The absurdity is in thinking we can limit -O- to any one daffynition, which when you think about it, is pretty disrespectful to -O- and is Idolatrous. I highly doubt -O- is concerned in how we believe, as long as we believe.

x>x>Spirituality should be a uniter in that we believe, not a divider by what we believe. I’m not concerned that our friend over there is…and so forth, what I’m concerned is in the sharing finite images of the Infinite with each other, agreeing to disagree in the details.

x>Are you unconcerned about the possibility there is A Truth?

There is A Truth and that is “-O- is and the rest is commentary.” I freely confess that my -O-image is incomplete, after all, I’m only human, which means I comprehend in finite images while -O- is infinite, a state that cannot be imaged.Yes, there are times the Stern Father slaps you upside the back of the head for being stupid, but it is more in frustration than condemnation. There are times that -O- appears as the Loving Mother to kiss the boo-boo and make it ‘all better.’ as well. Sometimes there is a presence that is so awesome, it seems like blasphemy to put it to words, no matter how much you feel driven to circle the square - one might as well attempt to drink the Pacific Ocean in a single gulp.

The Hindu school of Vedanta makes for a good -O-image as does Taoist thought. The Buddhist Tathata and Sunyata both are valid -O-images as well. A thesaurus is needed as no one daffynition is ‘The Truth, The Whole Truth, And Nothing But The Truth_©’ when it comes to daffyfining the Infinite.By using a thesaurus, we can walk alongside our fellow travelers for periods of time enjoying the company.

An associated problem with maps is that we have a tendency to selectively ignore the landscape while we follow the map, not paying attention to the fact that the Cedar and the Pine are both trees. Buddhism and Judaism are different religions, but they are both spiritual paths. Christianity and Hinduism both have admonitions to love -O- with all ones’ heart and soul. Taoism and Islam have different ideas about salvation, they just approach the issue from different angles. The Confucianist concept of Heaven is different than the Christian, but that does not mean one is True and the other False. Belief in The Divine is belief in The Divine, no matter what the cover story may be.To be honest, I would be extremely disappointed if -O- could be reduced to A Single Truth _©.

We all confess to the Infinity of -O- so how can a finite statement adequately daffyfine the Infinite? We all agree that -O- is Creator, but not all of us agree on the finer details of how it came about; is it the ‘Divine Plan’ of the West or the ‘Surprise Me’ of the East or it is something like a blend of the two? Is -O- a Being as imaged in the West, or Beingness, as imaged in the East, or some other type of critter altogether? Does -O- actually Love us, or is that the least clumsy way of talking about Divine Bliss? I know my offering of “-O- is…” is an attempt at a Single Truth, but I am not offering more that a confession that -O- is, not an apologetic about what in particular -O- is.

x>x>By using a thesaurus, we can walk alongside our fellow travelers for periods of time enjoying the company.

x>How does one enjoy the company of someone who has a different belief?

Realizing that no one side has a “Lock on the Truth” is paramount for all theories are equally incomplete. Think about it, -O- is much grander than our images, either singly or added. Is that not enough for celebration? It Does Not Matter that you have an image of the G-d of Judaism, she has the image of the Goddess, our friend over there the image of God, and mine is the ‘one without second’ of nondualistic mysticism. It Does Matter that we are each following what ‘God has written on our hearts.”

By sharing our visions, I feel we come closer to comprehending the Reality that is The Source of Images. One person may be partial to Italian while another may be partial to Greek food but they both can enjoy Thai without denying the other cuisines. Some wines are red while others are white; does red deny the reality of white? Some aspects of the Universe can be best explained in Newtonian Mechanics while others are best by Quantum Mechanics; it is still the same Universe under discussion. We call light ‘white’, but when we spread it through a prism, a wide variety of colors emerge, with blue being just as vital as green. The continuation of the Social Order is a compromise between the Traditionalist and the Progressive forces within Society.

x>x>A thesaurus is needed as no one daffynition is ‘The Truth, The Whole Truth, And Nothing But The Truth_©’ when it comes to daffyfining the Infinite.

x>Is not your “-O- is…” statement a daffynition as well?

It is merely a starting point for further discussion as the full statement is “-O- is and the rest is commentary.” The closest I come to offering a daffynition is “-O- is Infinite.” We have our various images of the Whatness but we all share a faith in the Isness of The Divine. The failure to realize this concept has caused great harm to Western Spirituality as far as I’m concerned, as Western Theologians have turned an Icon into an Idol by insisting there is ‘One and Only One True Image of God.’

By limiting God to The Old Man on The Throne, we limit Her ability to be the Goddess, or His appearance as Krishna, or to manifest as the Tao, to mention a few images. The Old Man on The Throne is a ‘what’ image of God that does a disservice to the idea ‘It is enough that I Am.’ I submit the Western drive to formalize what this ‘thatness’ is makes mockery of the idea of the Infinity of The Divine. I have long found it amazing that one can consider -O- to be Infinite on the one hand while saying on the other “This and Only This is The Truth about God.”My statement is not intended to indicate that I’m calling the Old Man image ‘false’ as I say no more than it is an Incomplete image, much like if someone were to say that I personally, represent the entire human race. There are times I submit some people skirt the edges of Blasphemy in promoting this -O-image as The Truth For The Whole World. These people are mistaken in the idea one can equate ‘Is like…’ with ‘Is’ as an Infinite can be have many aspects without becoming less Infinite. Thinking there is One True Confession confuses belief in a particular -O-image with faith in the Isness of the Source of the -O-images. It matters not so much which path we follow as that we follow a path, which is why I’m not too concerned with maps in particular, particularly one I would call ‘my own.’

x>x>Thinking there is One True Confession confuses belief in a particular -O-image with faith in the Isness of the Source of the -O-images.

x>It sounds as if you’re saying the image is not important.

What I’m saying is simply that an image is an image; it is not the Reality itself. Humans are just as emotionally as intellectually driven, thus we need to gnow as well as to know in order to help us come closer to comprehension. The trouble arises when we attach so much importance to the Image/Icon it takes on the status of an Idol. Your image of the Old Man on The Throne is just as important as our friend’s Jewish image, this person’s Islamic image, that person’s Hindu image, my nonimage, and all the rest. Just as all Knowledge is equally Incomplete, all -O-images are equally Incomplete. One is no closer to The Truth no matter which image one clings to. By elevating the Icon to Idol, we run the risk of committing Idolatry.

For all my yapping about -O- as Stern Father or Caring Mother, I do not believe -O- is one or the other. I certainly am not going to be crass enough to expect you to believe the same as I do, all I ask is that you understand our differences. One can understand and disagree with a position without being disagreeable about it. For example, I agree with you that whatever it is we call -O- is the Creator of Reality. I disagree with you on Creation being an incident in the past as I submit it is a continual process. The difference is that you talk about what -O- did back then while I talk about what -O- is doing now.I cannot condemn your position if I expect you to at least understand mine. I will not use my nonimage as a club to beat you over the head with as I hope for the same consideration from you.

Once we move past “-O- is.”, we misidentify the Infinite with a Finite. Yes, there are times when the only way to talk about -O- is as if He were the Old Man but there are times when one can only discuss how Mom kisses the boo boos and makes them ‘all better.’ Neither one, in and of itself is The Truth, just two of an infinite number of facets of the Holy Jewel that is Reality.We do harm to the concept of -O- when we make statements along the lines of “-O- is thus and so” because if He is This, She cannot be That, which is a contradiction of the concept of Infinite.

The images are important, but only up to a point. It is absurd to take an image past that point and expect it to work; One might as well drink the Pacific in one swallow or explain the Universe entirely with Newtonian Mechanics. We need the images as we communicate through imagery, but the images are like different colors in the visible bandwidth - Red does not deny Blue nor does either invalidate White. A person who cannot see the color green does not see a different world, she sees the world differently. A Name is not The Thing, A Map is not The Territory, and A Menu is not The Meal. Name, Map, and Menu are of the Mind while Thing, Territory, and Meal are of the Heart.

x>x>…not “illusion” as in fake, but “allusion”, that which points to a deeper truth.

x>“allusion”?

My nondualistic -O-image does not falsify your Orthodox Christian -O-image; our respective images allude to The Reality and neither is The Truth, in and of itself. Our various theologies are fingers pointing at the moon - our problem is that we mistake the finger for the moon - we compound the error by insisting others concentrate on the finger. The term “God” (Map) is not Reality (Territory) any more than the terms “Brahman”, “Tao”, “Heaven”, “Dharmakaya”, “HaShem”, “Allah”, or any of the ten thousand names of -O-. One can allude to the taste of a cherry pie, but the only way to be sure is to take a bite for yourself.

There is more than one way to say things, as there are many languages. The word Ki is different than Tree, but they both mean the same thing and a person can say One just as easily as Ichi. Although French is different than Greek, they both are a language as well as a cuisine. Country Western is different than Classical yet both are considered music. A picture of the Andromeda Galaxy taken under Infrared and one taken under X Ray may look different, but they are pictures of the same thing.I know I repeat myself quite a bit on this, but this is a case where it Does Matter. To misparaphrase - there are more than two ways of looking at things. Is there really any difference between a collector of Cubist, one of Abstract, and one of Realistic art? They all collect art, just different types.

By the same token, the -O-image of the Old Man, the Jewish G-d, Allah, Dharmakaya, Tao, Brahman, and Goddess, but to give name to a few are but different images of the same Reality. Each -O-image is as Incomplete as each other for an image is a Finite Construct while -O- is an Infinite Reality. A Name is nothing more than our method of talking about the thing, A Map is but a set of directions through the Territory, and A Menu is but a description of the Meal. To semi-quote Alan Watts - one has faith in the Moon, so why rely on a picture of the Moon on the window of the mind, go outside and look.

A Map implies there is only one way to traverse the Territory and many Western Maps are treated as if they were Holy Writ. A Christian Map works for a Christian, but it will not work as well for a Buddhist, and vice versa. We shouldn’t expect the Map of one Faith to work for a member of another Faith; the most one can hope for is mutual understanding of our differences. In the long run, it Does Not Matter which path a person takes for in His Infinite Compassion, He is the source-end of all paths This is why I’m more concerned about a Thesaurus than a Dictionary approach to spirituality. Spirituality is food for the soul, as I’ve said many times, but the trouble is that some people want to control our individual diet, as if one were supposed to eat French cuisine only. A singular diet is not only boring, it prevents one from enjoying the fatted calf of the nations. On top of that, it is hubristic; Chinese cuisine is just as tasty and good for a person. One thing we need to keep foremost in mind is ‘Understanding is not condoning.’ One can understand a point of view without believing it, just as one can dine on German cuisine once in a while without having it become a steady diet. 

x>x>It Does Not Matter that you have an image of the G-d of Judaism, she has the image of the Goddess, our friend over there the image of God, and mine is the ‘one without second’ of nondualistic mysticism. It Does Matter that we are each following what ‘God has written on our hearts.”

x>That is an interesting way to look at it.

I can think of no better way to celebrate the Infinity of -O- than by acknowledging “He is all things for all people.” We accept the idea of different colors within ‘white’ light and this is no different. Some follow blue, some green, and so on. At the Source, all colors are ‘white’; the individual colors are aspects of the Totality. The beauty of food is there are many methods of preparation, each as tasty as another.

Like I have been saying all along, the Isness of -O- is one concept we all share. Our differences are no more than green is not red and German is not Japanese. Rather than being different things, they are different aspects of the same thing.Far too much harm has been engendered in this striving to be The One Truth, which I call the Dictionary Approach to Religion. Maps are a form of this approach in that a Christian map is different from a Buddhist map although they are both maps of the same territory. Reading from the Dictionary of Judaism leads to the ‘same place’ as does the Dictionary of Confucianism and there is no essential difference between retiring to a Zen or a Trappist Monastery. This is why I prefer the Thesaurus approach - mutual understanding is a better goal of Religion than mutual antagonism. The Ultimate Beauty of that which we call the Divine is available to all who seek, wherever they seek.

x>x>Our various theologies are fingers pointing at the moon - our problem is that we mistake the finger for the moon - we compound the error by insisting others concentrate on the finger.

x>How can one have a theology based on the vagueness of “Incomplete”?

The way I see it is the various theologies bring about the vagueness as theology concentrates on specific while ignoring the general. I submit that if theological discourse started with “-O- is like…” or “The Christian {Whatever} understanding is this…”, a great majority of interfaith tension would vanish. One of the leading causes of this tension is this idea that different -O-images represent “Different Gods.”, extending the misunderstanding of Hindu theology onto all nontraditional theologies. Although Hindus talk about many Gods, there is only The One, the others are aspects of That Which Is. Even though a Buddhist and a Catholic will use different stories to talk about the Divine, they are still discussing the Divine. It is the stories that are different for -O- is all things to all people.  

There is nothing vague about believing in a Reality that is grander than we can image, as far as I’m concerned. If One could wrap their mind around -O-, would that really be -O-? One way of looking at it is that we are all Monotheistic at the core of our belief but Polytheological in talking about it. At times, one cannot help but discuss the Stern Father and other times the Gentle Mother is the only way to talk. Sometimes one must take the approach of Tathata, at others, Sunyata. In some respects, -O- is One and in some, -O- is Many, it all depends on how one is looking at the time.

As any mystic will tell you, the Experience is far from vague for it is an experience that has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer; to semi misparaphrase Zen, it’s like swallowing a red hot iron ball. With the exception of internal understandings, the mystical and the born again experience are the same. One expression used to talk about the Experience is ‘Standing naked in the Sight of God’, which can be rather unsettling. It is a humbling feeling to Know that God can See me In Every Detail, and, at the same time, it is Blissful, for I have come to realize He Loves me despite my faults. -O- is much grander than any image we can come up with for -O- is the Source of the images. Each -O-image is Incomplete in that a -O-image points to a deeper truth rather that to itself. The idea of ‘incomplete’ applies not to -O- but to our understanding of Him, and is not to be taken in a derogatory context. Rather than a critique of the limitations of language, Incompleteness is a celebration that -O- is much grander than anything we can say.

x>x>Far too much harm has been engendered in this striving to be The One Truth, which I call the Dictionary Approach to Religion…This is why I prefer the Thesaurus approach - mutual understanding is a better goal of Religion than mutual antagonism.

x>How does mutual understanding help?

It points out that we are all working for the same goal. Christian charity is promoted by one campfire story and another promotes Buddhist charity. A charitable act is a charitable act and there should be no reason a Christian and a Buddhist cannot work on the same charity. In one Faith we find “Honor thy Mother and Father” and in another we find Familial Piety with the difference being, what? Belief in -O- is belief in -O-, no matter which image one is following. Although the Christian campfire story of Salvation is different than the Hindu, they both are stories about Salvation.

As long as both are working towards the same goal, what difference does it make that they are following different paths? I admit that -O- is and you admit that God is. We both admit to the Isness and I see no reason why our -O-images must mesh in each and every detail. Your belief that God has a “Why?” for all this does not negate that I believe it is simply because it is.I know I’ve talked about it before, but I firmly believe that understanding another’s position helps to clarify your thoughts on your own position. The idea that one will criticize a particular point of view without going through the process of understanding that point of view seem a bit absurd to me. By mutual understanding, I do not mean mutual belief for one can understand a position without believing it. I understand and agree the materialist on the hard cold facts but I disagree with it is the only source of truth when it comes to understanding what this is all about. On the same token, I agree with the concept -O- but I disagree with some of the warm fuzzy facts when it comes to understanding what this is all about.