Why pantheists lapse

 

“War* is father of all, and king of all.

  He turns some into gods, others into  men,

  He makes some slaves, others free.” 

                                                Heraclitus (c. 500 BC)

 

As above (i.e. as the surface or skin), so below (i.e. as the ground).” 

                                               Victor (1974) et al.

 

 

Anyone who really wants to see the truth about life and understand its source (as urge or driver) can do so quite easily. After all life (i.e. ‘the above’) is but a transient, indeed momentary application of its source (i.e. ‘the below’, i.e. as ‘ground’, so Meister Eckhart, c.1260 – c.1329). The trouble is that what is seen/experienced of/as life is but a thin skin (in ancient India imagined as illusion) of awesome beauty responded to with joy but which covers a vast underbelly of for the most part horrific carnage and pain. Life, as anyone can observe, is an awful (i.e. a terrible) food (i.e. data recombination) chain which, in the end, no one survives. The response of most human beings to the awful (i.e. the terrible) is denial, mostly by means of distraction.

 

Enter the storyteller (i.e. the entertainer) whose job it is to distract from the awful/terrible by accentuating the beauty of the skin. He adds the cosmetics of personal fantasy, religious or

     In ancient times (or childhood) the storyteller was or doubled as the priest/shaman. He entertained the simpler folk with fantasies (i.e. God rather than fairy tales) about the purpose of life and the meaning of death. His fantasies also included rules (i.e. ethics) for everyday survival and promises of rewards (i.e. heaven) for those who kept the rules and punishment (i.e. hell) for those who didn’t. He consoled and comforted the anxious and/or lost and threatened those who had found and were in the process of perfecting their niche function (Sanskrit: dharma) and so dared to act out their (anarchic) god (elaboration) status.

 

philosophical, complete with fake but useful notions of omnipotent and loving gods and wonderful heavens, with or without angels, to cover over and so hide the awful reality (i.e. the true albeit incomplete (hence sinful) God/ground) that creates the beautiful skin.

 

Pantheism (to wit, radical monism), as first expressed by Heraclitus in Greece and in the early Upanishads in India, - as against the radical pluralism of the ‘conditioned arising’ notion of early Buddhism - reveals the reality of the dark underbelly of life, that is to say, of the pretty but horrible (in their natural actions) bio-systems that inhabit this earth.

 

In short, the basic functions of all biological, indeed mammal life, and humans are mammal, is eat, shut, copulate.

 

Alas, the story of the rise (i.e. birth) and fall (i.e. death) of real, actual phenomena (≈ life) which pantheism tells is not

The trick of achieving a happy life is to win (as many battles as possible though the war will inevitably by lost). Winning (i.e. achieving completion) is signalled with happiness (+ consciousness + the sense of realness ≈ being, Sanscrit: satcitananda), losing (i.e. failing to achieve incompletion) with unhappiness (+ consciousness – the sense of realness ≈ being).

suitable for infants and juveniles. For it is the job/dharma of infants and juveniles to grow up in the (false) hope of entering a perfect world so that they may become strong enough to fight the war which adults are losing and which ‘turns some into gods, others into men, some into slaves, others free.’

 

Pantheism (i.e. radical, pre ethics monism) is for the strongest adults only, that is to say, for the heroic few or for those who ‘get on with the job regardless’ and who dare to face down (or simply ignore) their creator (i.e. God, i.e. the basic urge to life) and take up the challenge consciously or unconsciously to release their creator from his blind, chaotic and lawless urge to life by creating a ‘better world’ (i.e. a useful fiction as placebo). It is the pantheist (i.e. the radical monist) who fully understands and can live with the brutal and horrific incompleteness of the creation urge (experienced in the extreme during the midlife crisis). It is he (or she) alone who consciously makes of the chaotic and lawless world of the father (i.e. of God, i.e. of the Brahman as matrix) a better, a complete because lawful, and therefore joyful world. It is by taking upon himself (or herself) the pain of achieving momentary creation completion (read: quantization ≈ @ min. entropy status ≈ enstasy) that the son eliminates ‘the sin (i.e. incompletion) of the father’. 

 

The pantheist appears to lapse in that he (or she) decides to remain silent (in former times, like Spinoza et al., to avoid being burnt at the stake or stoned to death). However, he/she also refrains from telling his/her truth for fear (or out of compassion) that his/her truth might jeopardise the completion and so creation thrust of the yet immature. He/she retires from the fray and lets the consolation and comfort peddlers (i.e. the religious and/or TV storytellers, gurus and so on) win the day.

 

So, if every you ask a pantheist: “Tell me the truth”, he will answer, “You don’t really want to know!” After all, as the ancient Indians quipped, “The Guru (i.e. the truth, the answer) appears when the devotee (the untrue, the questioner) is ready (meaning: able to survive the truth).”

Pantheism

Sat-cit-ananda

 

*… for ‘war’ substitute ‘violence’. Your beautiful new car is the product of sheer unbelievable violence. Every part of it (as of yourself) has been formed by violent means.

 

© 2016 Victor Langheld