God and Humans

(Too Simplistic)

Mahjong

Your essay was interesting and thought provoking. My conclusion, however, is that it is too simplistic. Attractive, perhaps, but simplistic. There are many human needs. Different people have different needs. In addition, those needs vary over time, in both kind and intensity, and frequently they are dependent on immediate circumstances.

Simple example. Thirst. That word represents a basic human need for water. I would agree with your view that such Thirst disturbs one's peace of mind. However, it is Water that will satisfy that need, not some idea about Peace of Mind. Along similar lines, if I am feeling especially "sexy" and want some "action," I would agree with your view that such a need disturbs one's Peace of Mind. However, it is some "action" that will satisfy that need, not some idea about Peace of Mind. In fact, the satisfaction of that need may involve a very excited state of mind, not one that I would consider a peaceful one.

My conclusion is that God has been invented to serve many different human needs. Peace of Mind is just one of the possible needs God my help me satisfy. God will make it rain, so that I can satisfy my Thirst. God will make some sexual action available, somehow, and help me satisfy that need.God is an extension of human desire (not just "need"). God provides power and action to help us achieve our desires when our own powers and abilities are limited.

My personal view is that the Universe is Consciousness in its manifold manifestations. Each manifestation follows its course in the unfolding of Potentiality. Manifestations interact in terms of Co-Dependent Arising and Interdependence. All that is IS what it is. All is Becoming and Changing, Unfolding. The lion hunts the gazelle. The gazelle flees from the lion. Consciousness in its Human manifestation is (sometimes) aware of what we refer to as Good and Evil (or what is beneficial or unbeneficial, for ourselves and others.) However, each human being is a unique manifestation of Being and Consciousness. What is "true" for one or another is not, necessarily, true of another other.

All we can do, is the best we can.

Thanks for the provocative essay.

Metta.

John Dishwasher

First, while spiritual and physical needs are definitely intertwined, they are not identical. And so, though using a thirsty man's need for a glass of water as an analogy for a disturbed mind's need for peace of mind, seems attractive, I don't really think it stands up, at least not in the context of this essay.

When I was wrestling with this question, and looking around on those commuter trains outside Boston, and at my coworkers in the warehouse, I could have very easily thought to myself: Everyone here needs sleep; everyone here needs a snickers bar; that guy really needs to go to the bathroom. That kind of thing is pretty apparent. But those observations did not answer the question I was trying to answer. I was not looking for the physical needs of the people around me, I was looking for something non-physical: a mind-need, or, if you will, a spiritual need. In this way I think you are arguing a point different from mine. It has parallels, but the parallels are a little more deceptive than illuminating.

Having separated out this spiritual need from the physical ones, though, I think I can build on your illustrations to further clarify what I'm saying. What I am saying is that it is not the water that we seek that makes us equivalent, it is the thirst for the water. It is not the sex we seek that makes us equivalent, it is the craving for sex. In this analogy the "water" we seek is the "god" we seek. It can have various names, and be found through various paths. But there is no path to the thirst. For thirst is the beginning of the path. All I have done in the essay is change perspective a little. Instead of calling the path--or the goal of the path--"god," I have turned about and said why not call the source of the path "god." At that beginning place, at the place where we just feel a need for peace of mind, there is nothing yet to argue about.

Thanks for your rebuttal. I have to say it took me a day or so of thinking about it before I could really respond.

Mahjong

In your original post you said: "I realized that the real core of what we put into spiritual terms does not have to be put into spiritual terms. And that, actually, if we remove all the language of "god" and "religion" and "spirituality" still the root of what has come to be couched in these words can stand quite firmly without them."

I quite agree. I just wish you had done so.

For some reason, you keep the God word in your disquisition right to the end. And again, you don't need it. At the close of your response to mine (not intended as a rebuttal), you said: "At that beginning place, at the place where we just feel a need for peace of mind, there is nothing yet to argue about." Again, I agree, completely. But, please, let's not refer to that need or its fulfillment as "God." It's not necessary, as you said.

Beyond the obvious physical needs, there are vague, indistinct, emotional needs. Many people refer to them as "spiritual" needs, but I understand and address them as emotional needs or experiences. As a "complement" to your term Peace of Mind, I have used the term "Anxiety" (to reflect its absence). Anxiety is quite common among humankind, as you have strongly suggested. I searched in regard to same thing, as you have apparently been doing. My conclusion is stated in my post on Infant Anxiety, which I don't want to repeat here.

No. We do not have to make references to God. And, as you said, "At that beginning place, at the place where we just feel a need for peace of mind, there is nothing yet to argue about."

Metta.

John Dishwasher

Yeah, I hear you. I was trying to present a different sort of idea without bogging it down with a whole new vocabulary. "God" is a loaded word, and if I could have written the piece without it I would have, but without it I think a lot of people would not have been able to identify with my main point. And it's a word that all traditions, (and atheists, too, ) have in common. I wrestled with when to put quotes around the word. Putting them at every utterance would have been too distracting. This is good example of how the tradition we are all raised in hobbles us, how the terms we inherit and use as we try to redefine certain ideas, defy the redefinition of those ideas.

I re_read my response to yours and feel I came off a little strong. I know it wasn't a rebuttal, but a complement. I come off a little confrontational but I didn't mean it to be, that has not been my intent in this at all. I started this identical thread in eighteen different groups almost a week ago because I wanted different perspectives. This has been a serious week of writing and thinking for me and my use of the nuances of politeness has waned. This is dangerous because people start to doubt your goodwill and react to you less openly. You haven't done that. Thanks. You've obviously worked through these questions for yourself and have found a way to give them new language. "Emotional" is a much more precise word than "spiritual" (with a lot less baggage.) And flipping the perspective to focus on what we are moving away from "the anxiety" from what we are moving toward "peace of mind" is a perspective I have used in other pieces I've written.* Anyway, no offense, and I appreciate your response. It was one of the most challenging and thought_provoking ones I've gotten.

I don't know what "metta" means, but if it means something like "peace" I send it right back to you, my friend.

*In my symbolic story "The Cold River Boy" a child messiah comes to teach people that the road to peace is not by seeking peace, but by turning around and embracing anxiety. As you can imagine, that's not news they're particularly happy to hear. You can read the story here if you want.

Mahjong

I hear you, John. Thanks for your kind response and thoughts. As a note (which you may already be very well aware of) Thich Nhat Hanh makes reference several times to embracing and comforting the child within us. That is something quite like what you are talking about through your Cold River Boy, where the teaching of embracing anxiety applies. Metta.

John Dishwasher

It means a lot to me that you took the time to read it. I just googled Thich Nhat Hanh and have his wikipedia entry open in another window. I've not yet been exposed to him. I'm going to check him out now. Thanks.

Read Mahjong's "Infant Anxiety" essay here.

Read our discussion about his essay here.