Marriage With the Universe
Sep. 27th, 2011 08:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cedar_groveFrom The Book of Awakening: Having the Life You Want by Being Present to the Life You Have.
We must ask what made one explorer set foot on a continent he'd never seen and proclaim, This is Mine!, and what made the other bow and utter in humility, I belong to this...[of Columbus and Jung]
Oooh, the deep spiritual answer to this question could be the spiritual evolution of each of the men in question. The interesting answer might be to try and consider what each would have done in the other's place – were Columbus exploring the 'continent' of the mind, and Jung the 'New World.'
I don't mean to be flippant – actually it's a very interesting point in light of all of the things that are going on in the world right now... the arguments, the politics, the wars, the questions of human rights... What makes each of us view something in a particular way.
The difference seems to me to be that one defines, while the other embraces... but even that could seem to apply either way around. Is 'this is mine' a definition of something – putting it in a box and labelling it – or is it a sense of embracing something and taking it to oneself? (And vice versa)
Defining something, by its very nature, limits a thing. Let's get socio-theospophically political for a moment as an example. Marriage. Let's define it – let's put some limits on it:
-A union between one woman and one man...
-A union between one man and several woman according to his means...
-A union between two individuals regardless of gender...
-A union between several individuals regardless of gender...
-A union between one zhen, one shen, one chan, and one thaan...
Columbus thinking would have us select one, and take ownership of it... and boy are we arguing about that just now – as a race of humans I mean... and no, the last one was not put in to be flippant, just to... make a point. Demonstrate that even outside of our microcosmic self-centredness, the question of what constitutes marriage is still on the minds of even the most creative of souls. Personally I cannot choose between any of those definitions to say 'this is mine.' The minute I try, I'm suddenly Jungian in my thought, (as would most of us be if we are honest enough to say so), because we would choose the definition that best suits our situation, and thereby are really saying, 'I belong to this...'
But from a personal level, I look at all of those possible definitions of marriage and truly do say 'yes... I belong to this...' the commonality in all of them is 'union.' If I must box it – if I must limit it, I will say marriage is a union... and leave it as loosely defined as that.
All things are this way... when we define and own something, we limit it. When we embrace something in humility and confess our unity or belonging with the concept, we are offered limitless possibilities, and true Universal Oneness... and nothing – including ourselves – is abused.
We shouldn't abuse God's creatures.
You must reserve the haiku, not:
a dragonfly;
remove its wings-
pepper tree.
but:
a pepper tree;
add wings to it-
dragonfly.
--The Japanese master Basho in response to Kikakou's poem
We must ask what made one explorer set foot on a continent he'd never seen and proclaim, This is Mine!, and what made the other bow and utter in humility, I belong to this...[of Columbus and Jung]
Oooh, the deep spiritual answer to this question could be the spiritual evolution of each of the men in question. The interesting answer might be to try and consider what each would have done in the other's place – were Columbus exploring the 'continent' of the mind, and Jung the 'New World.'
I don't mean to be flippant – actually it's a very interesting point in light of all of the things that are going on in the world right now... the arguments, the politics, the wars, the questions of human rights... What makes each of us view something in a particular way.
The difference seems to me to be that one defines, while the other embraces... but even that could seem to apply either way around. Is 'this is mine' a definition of something – putting it in a box and labelling it – or is it a sense of embracing something and taking it to oneself? (And vice versa)
Defining something, by its very nature, limits a thing. Let's get socio-theospophically political for a moment as an example. Marriage. Let's define it – let's put some limits on it:
-A union between one woman and one man...
-A union between one man and several woman according to his means...
-A union between two individuals regardless of gender...
-A union between several individuals regardless of gender...
-A union between one zhen, one shen, one chan, and one thaan...
Columbus thinking would have us select one, and take ownership of it... and boy are we arguing about that just now – as a race of humans I mean... and no, the last one was not put in to be flippant, just to... make a point. Demonstrate that even outside of our microcosmic self-centredness, the question of what constitutes marriage is still on the minds of even the most creative of souls. Personally I cannot choose between any of those definitions to say 'this is mine.' The minute I try, I'm suddenly Jungian in my thought, (as would most of us be if we are honest enough to say so), because we would choose the definition that best suits our situation, and thereby are really saying, 'I belong to this...'
But from a personal level, I look at all of those possible definitions of marriage and truly do say 'yes... I belong to this...' the commonality in all of them is 'union.' If I must box it – if I must limit it, I will say marriage is a union... and leave it as loosely defined as that.
All things are this way... when we define and own something, we limit it. When we embrace something in humility and confess our unity or belonging with the concept, we are offered limitless possibilities, and true Universal Oneness... and nothing – including ourselves – is abused.
