RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

The Ground of Being

It is all there, all the time, everywhere and everywhence. How overwhelming but how strange seen from the limited perspective of one man or woman’s eyes, or discerned by their senses; beyond our perception and our conception and therefore beyond normal belief.

And so we break it down to that little bit we can physically ‘know’; that we can mentally circumscribe. When you understand that the universe (or indeed perhaps even universes) exist eternally and all at once, the act of creation must be looked at differently. In effect there is nothing to create because everything that ever was or could possibly exist is there already. Then what is created? It is an illusion of reality. We have believed from our studies of physics that the universe was prised out of nothing. It seems to me now to be exactly the opposite. We are, as Bernhard Haisch, astrophysicist and author has written, part of a “process that makes something out of everything!” Consequently the world as we know it, this illusion created by the limitations of our physical and conceptual knowing, relies on a reductionist process of taking away until reality is pared down to something small enough to match our awareness.

And so we create an I and a you that are seemingly separate from everything else. We then seem to be alienated from the Ground of Being, God, the All (as per my recent little blasphemous blog!) – whatever we have learned to call it. This is what creates the human dilemma. Separation causes fear. It manufactures a perceived vulnerability, highlighted by our sense of mortality. We take steps to protect ourselves as do these other little crumbs of the ultimate reality we now need to deal with as other human beings in this limited bit of time and space we have shaved off in order to experience our separateness. As a result we become competitive, insecure, untrusting and fearful.

Ken Wilbur quoted Sri Ramana Maharshi attempting to resolve this paradox;

The world is illusory;
Brahman alone is real;
Brahman is the world.

(It is amazing how something evolving from the Vedanta tradition could sound so Zen –like!)

In 1944, Aldous Huxley published “The Perennial Philosophy.” In this book he underlined some of the pervading themes in the major religious traditions.

He enunciated the four fundamental doctrines at the core of the Perennial Philosophy as follows:

1. The phenomenal world of matter and individualised consciousness is the manifestation of a Divine Ground within which all partial realities have their being and apart from which they would be non-existent.
2. Human beings are capable not merely of knowing about the Divine Ground by inference; they can also realise its existence by a direct intuition, superior to discursive reasoning. This immediate knowledge unites the knower with that which is known.
3. Man possesses a double nature, a phenomenal ego and an eternal Self, which is the inner man, the spirit, the spark of divinity within the soul. It is possible for a man, if he so desires, to identify himself with the spirit and therefore the Divine Ground, which is of the same or like nature with the spirit.
4. Man’s life on earth has only one end and one purpose: to identify himself with his eternal Self and so to come to unitive knowledge of the Divine Ground.

Huxley maintained that the Perennial Philosophy is expressed most succinctly in the Sanskrit formula tat tvam asi (“That thou art.); the Atman, or immanent eternal Self, is one with Brahman, the Absolute Principle of all existence; and the last end of every human being is to discover the fact for himself, to find out who he really is.

Now I must say I find this a much more satisfying and consoling thought than Jesus coming again or Allah allowing me into paradise with whatever my allotment of virgins might be!

A Note to my Younger Readers
(This probably includes only Cathy and Father Robin, I suspect – but they’re worth the effort!)
• These days “phenomenal” is used in a more colloquial way to mean “extraordinary, remarkable prodigious,” for example. In the instance above (“phenomenal ego”) phenomenal means arising from the phenomena, that is the phenomena of separation and physicality.

• The language used by Huxley above in defining his four doctrines would be seen possibly as sexist today. However in his time “man” was generally interpreted as humankind and the use of the masculine pronouns was understood to include the feminine. And one could understand an imperious and paternalistic style because the sun was still never setting on the British Empire! Interestingly Huxley has belatedly been given some recognition for his enlightened views on women. An early essay, for example took the cosmetic industry to task for demeaning women.

Trackback URL



  1. 21 Comment(s)

  2.   By Father Robin on Jul 21, 2010 | Reply

    Comment under construction.

  3.   By Father Robin on Jul 21, 2010 | Reply

    Highly favourable.

  4.   By Father Robin on Jul 21, 2010 | Reply

    Who Knows?

    We might just actually agree.

  5.   By Father Robin on Jul 21, 2010 | Reply

    “As a result we become competitive, insecure, untrusting and fearful.”

    Government policy.

    Whither lieth Love?

  6.   By Father Robin on Jul 21, 2010 | Reply

    We seem to be dominated by stark staring raving economists!

    If this is to be the future count me out.

    I rate Love above money.

  7.   By Father Robin on Jul 21, 2010 | Reply

    Well above, actually.

  8.   By Father Robin on Jul 21, 2010 | Reply

    A thought.

    Huxley defines “The Perennial Philosophy’ as “The metaphysic that recognises a divine Reality substantial to the world of things and lives and minds” (His Capitalisation).

    Work on It.

  9.   By Father Robin on Jul 21, 2010 | Reply

    Father Ted

    In an attempt to combine both hemispheres might I suggest:

    “Concentrate on Reality.

    Forget reality.

    Reality is an illusion”

  10.   By Father Robin on Jul 21, 2010 | Reply

    Three Aspros help.

  11.   By Father Robin on Jul 21, 2010 | Reply

    p.s.

    “I have to admit that my preferred method of communication is via smoke signals”

    Hiawatha.

  12.   By Father Robin on Jul 22, 2010 | Reply

    Question.

    What is Reality?

  13.   By Father Robin on Jul 22, 2010 | Reply

    “This week I felt moved to engage the big question again. No doubt some of you would have preferred I stuck with my recent guest presenters! So back to the heady stuff of spirituality (but not without a little tongue in cheek)”

    Stuff the ‘little tongue in cheek’

    Ready when You are.

  14.   By Father Robin on Jul 22, 2010 | Reply

    Essentilly, the ground of zero is zero.

  15.   By Father Robin on Jul 25, 2010 | Reply

    Communication via the written word is, at best, bad.

    Via the spoken word is better.

    Face to face is a vast improvment.

    No communication is Perfect.

    Well, not in my experience anyway.

  16.   By Father Robin on Jul 25, 2010 | Reply

    Nomination for best ad?

    “Oils ain’t oils”

    Castrol.

    Sort THAT out!

  17.   By Father Robin on Jul 26, 2010 | Reply

    As for your ‘blasphemous blog’?

    ‘Long live the Queen’

    With lovely sparklers on her birthday mudcake.

  18.   By Father Robin on Jul 26, 2010 | Reply

    I didn’t get a knighthood either.

  19.   By Father Robin on Jul 26, 2010 | Reply

    Actually I prefer Father Robin to Sir Robin

  20.   By Father Robin on Jul 26, 2010 | Reply

    Sir Ted

    While (confidentially), it actually pisses me off.

    Her advisers need severe training in political correctness.

  21.   By Greg Borwn on Jul 26, 2010 | Reply

    I find it amusing when I hear or read discussions about the political correctness or otherwise of our language. This is particular the case when gender comes into it. Man holes have become access holes, mankind, humankind and so on. This has no doubt made a lot of people feel better but really changed nothing.

    The biggest issue with communication is the spoken or the written word itself. Those who hold onto the words alone miss the point. A question answered with a smile can convey vastly more information than a verbose response. Anthony De Mello says it well in one of his little stories.

    Said a traveller to one of the disciples, “I have travelled a great distance to listen to the Master, but I find his words quite ordinary.”
    “Don’t listen to his words. Listen to his message.”
    “How does one do that?”
    “Take hold of a sentence that he says. Shake it well till all the words drop off. What is left will set your heart on fire.”

  22.   By Father Robin on Jul 26, 2010 | Reply

    Greg

    Anthony said It well.

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.