Observations that dive deep into life and come up with treasures for all

While this admonition is everywhere common and we all do it, what does it mean? The problem with this statement is that we assume that there is some subjective thinker that remembers God. I remember God means that there is a subject and an object, I and God. And yet, God is One, not two. Oh, we can have an idea that God is One, but that is still a subject or thinker having a thought about God. Remembering God is a paradox, a Zen koan that can’t be solved by the intellect. First, to remember something means that the something is past experience, and how can the past be the God of the living present? Past is dead. Second, to remember something means that you once knew it. Did we once know God an then forgot?

Hah, there’s the answer to the riddle. We once knew God and then we forgot. In the forgetting we have become split into a thinker and the thought. The God we forgot was our original oneness when we didn’t have to remember God because we were doing God. Children do God. Lovers do God. Sex is doing God. Those who sacrifice themselves are doing God. Remembering God is the end of duality and the separation of the thinker as an separate ego from his objective world. We have many moments when we remember God, a moment of awesome beauty, a meeting with a loved one, the release of playing with a child,and even a moment of extreme grief. But immediately thought comes in and says, “Oh, how great that moment was. I need to remember that.”

So God is all our powerful non-dual moments, and the moment we say we have to remember that, we are forgetting God. So in the paradoxical world of truth, remembering God is forgetting God. Trying to remember God means that you are not doing God, because you cannot remember what you already are, just as you cannot get what you already have.

Posted under current events

From a piece on Huffingtonpost.com this morning there is a new slant on the election. Is God one or two?

“Dobson reserved some of his harshest criticism for Obama’s argument that the religiously motivated must frame debates over issues like abortion not just in their own religion’s terms but in arguments accessible to all people. He said Obama, who supports abortion rights, is trying to govern by the “lowest common denominator of morality,” labeling it “a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution.”
“Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies?” Dobson said. “What he’s trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe.”

The question this brings to my mind cuts to the basic idea of morality; is morality two or one? Is morality always my morality as right and your morality as wrong? Or is there one morality that grows out of its opposite? Is morality—is God, for that matter—two or one? Is there a whole larger than its parts?

Dodson builds his morality out of war, out of righteousness, and out of being the defender of morality. But to be a defender, you must have an attack. You can’t defend unless you have an enemy. If one takes the stance of a defender, you must by the nature of your self-definition look for and create an enemy. Without the enemy, you cease to exist. Without the un-chosen, you can’t be the chosen.

So here you have Obama trying to find a way to an inclusive morality with Dodson holding out for an exclusive morality: one is New Testament, the other Old Testament. One is love your opposites; the other is eye for an eye. Is this election now a war between two Bibles? It may be.

Posted under current events