GOD IS THE PLACE---THE SPACE OF THE WORLD

There are many names for God in Judaism. The Midrash, an early Jewish interpretation of or commentary on a Biblical text, teaches:

Why is God called by the name Makom meaning ‘place’ or ‘space’? Because he is the space of the world, but the world is not his place.

Perhaps you don’t believe in God. That’s OK insofar as I’m concerned. My concept of God is far from traditional. J B Phillips, the English Bible scholar, translator, author and minister, wrote a little book entitled Your God is Too Small. The book contains some good ideas but the God that Phillips says is the 'real,' 'big,' and 'true' one is, in my view, still far too small. My concept of God is essentially nontheistic, at least when viewed in traditional terms. It's outside the square. It's big ... as big as the universe and even bigger than that. My concept of God, now shared by many others (including a number of influential theologians), is still a biblical one, that is, it is supportable by reference to sacred scripture. What's more, it makes sense in the light of what we now know about life and the universe. Traditional concepts of God don't.

Now, having said all that, I think we can safely say this much is true---there was something uncaused and self-existent at the very beginning ... before there was even space and time. We can call it self-existent being, and it is still 'here.' It is still a case of---it is. It exists, not from itself, but of itself. And this pure actuality of existence or being-ness, having within it the plenitude of all being as well as all activity, is the undivided and indivisible wholeness of all existence. The what is is forever becoming the what will be, forever releasing and so realizing its innate creativeness. This being-ness---as well as becoming-ness---fills all time and space with its presence, hence the Biblical concept of omnipresence. 

Omnipresence. What a wonderful word! We are talking about an ‘all-encompassing’ uncreated reality ('Presence')---reality in self-expression, if you like---that, although unmanifest, forever takes shape and form as manifest existence and being-ness. Omnipresence means ... there is. That's it! There is. That's all of reality. That's all of life. The past? Well, the past is 'there is ... no more.' And the future? The future is 'there is ... not yet.' We are talking about a reality that is truly limitless, encompassing all things including all of space---and yet beyond all space as well. This Presence is not ‘transcendent’ in the sense of some supposed anthropomorphic deity in the ‘upper regions,’ nor can it be said to be immanent for the Presence is not actually contained ‘in’ or ‘within’ anything, nor can this Presence be said to be in any way ‘separate’ from the universe (that is, the sum total of all that is) for the notion of separateness denotes divisibility whereas this Presence is essentially indivisible. It is not only present everywhere, it is Presence itself … everywhere! You can call it the ‘spirit of life’ if you wish. It is to be found everywhere, but especially at the very centre of your being.

As mentioned, makom is the Hebrew word for place. The word comes from a verb (קוּם) meaning ‘to arise,’ suggesting the idea of resurrection, metaphorically at least. I prefer to see it as an unfolding or a manifestation. Be that as it may, the word makom appears in the Hebrew Bible (the Tanakh) over 300 times and in the Torah (the first 5 books of the 24 books of the Tanakh) over 100 times. Its first mention is in the very first chapter of the Book of Genesis where God is said to have created the world and collected the water to one ‘place’ (see Gen 1:9). 

Now, all talk of God as a ‘person,’ in the sense that you and I are persons, is problematic, indeed wrong. Whenever God is referred to in sacred scripture in physical terms it is meant as a metaphor. Got that? A metaphor. Indeed, all theology is metaphor. It is more akin to poetry. It is axiomatic that the Divine---that which is sacred, holy, and of ultimate importance---is not physical and has no physical properties as such. No one should be expected to believe in a God that was so limited, finite, and contingent. We, however, are physical---at least in substantial part---and by reason of our finiteness (in particular, the limitations of time and space) we can only understand things from a physical frame of reference. Hence the need for metaphoric language.

So, what is the metaphor of HaMakom (‘The Place’)? Well, we all know that a ‘place,’ any place, is much more than a geographical location. It’s a space which is capable of containing something else---for example, people, plants, animals, and rocks and minerals. When used in reference to the Divine it means a sacred place, a place where everything is contained, that is, has its being-ness, within the Divine, at least conceptually, but the divine is not contained in anything as such. The Hebrew sages would say, ‘He [God] doesn't have a place, rather He is The Place of the Universe.’ Got the idea?

The New Testament puts it this way, ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, “We are his offspring”’ (Acts 17:28). Now, that’s not pantheism. It’s panentheism, that is, God is the ground of all being, God is in all things, all things are in God, but all things do not exhaust the actuality of God. Similarly, Jesus (pictured) is reported to have said, ‘I am in my Father: and you in me, and I in you’ (Jn 14:20). 

The God of which I am speaking is the one form-less, essence-less, self-existent, self-knowing, self-giving, self-becoming, self-actualizing, absolute, indestructible, and abundant existence that forever takes form, that is, incarnates, as you, me, and everything else, but which is never even for a moment absorbed by the innumerable objects of its Self-expression. Indeed, this Be-ing---or Being-ness itself---transcends the limits of matter … and even time and space which are really one, and no more than mediums in which all things exist. Life is flux and movement---ceaseless movement---and life itself is timeless and spaceless. That much is clear. Another thing is clear---everything is contained within ‘the now.’ All duration (time) is total and complete in the now, and there is an ‘eternal’ quality about the now. It is forever new. The present moment has its unfolding in the Now.

You may not like the word ‘God’. The word may conjure up unpleasant memories, or otherwise have unpleasant connotations, for you. If so, don’t use the word. ‘The word is not the thing,’ as the Indian spiritual philosopher J. Krishnamurti so often said.  The true nature of the Divine, as pure and ever-perfect Be-ing, is revealed in these Bible verses from the third chapter of the Book of Exodus in the Hebrew Bible:

13 Then Moses said to God, ‘Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?’

14 And God said to Moses, ‘I AM THAT I AM.’ And He said, ‘Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’’

The words 'I AM' refer to the subject---note that word, 'subject,' not object---of all existence. The Bible says that I AM is God. So, God, that is, the very essence and being-ness of life itself, becomes what God has said that which God is---'I AM THAT I AM.' We are talking about the very presence and power of life itself---there is only one such presence and power---which forever gives of itself to itself in order to perpetuate itself ... and to become. In a deeper sense, we are talking about the Self-knowingness of God, for we too can be conscious (or rather self-conscious) of that very same I AM presence and power that is the ground of our being, indeed, the ground of all Be-ing. It is the All-in-all. 

So, HaMakom is the life that is the subject of true existence, the very life that lies within, and otherwise manifests itself through and as objects, being all persons and things---the very livingness, or rather Self-livingness, of life itself. Put simply, perhaps even too simply, each of us is I AM in expression---as you and me. Yes, each of us is an 'eachness' within the ALL-ness of the Divine.

God is the place, and God in you, as you, is you. Yes, as you live out your daily existence, know this---you are I AM in expression.

I AM has spoken. And so it is.

MINDFULNESS, SUPERNATURALISM, THEISM AND SPIRITUALITY

Mindfulness, whether of a Buddhist or non-Buddhist kind, does not depend for its efficacy upon any notions of supernaturalism or of a creator or interventionist God. In other words, mindfulness is entirely naturalistic and in that sense secular and non-religious (but not inherently anti-religious). I call it 'transreligious,' but that's another matter.

Naturalism and ‘supernaturalism’

For what it’s worth, my world view is entirely naturalistic and non-theistic. By ‘naturalistic’ I am referring to the rejection of any notion of there being different levels or orders of reality, irrespective of whether those levels or orders are higher and lower or otherwise of two or more kinds in some way co-existing or interpenetrating each other. By naturalistic I am also rejecting any appeal to so-called supernatural revelation or authority. By naturalistic I seek to desupernaturalize but at the same time remythologize those parts and aspects of traditional religion that are couched in supernatural terms, language and thought forms. (Years ago I read some of the writings of Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, and it changed my whole approach to religion and stance on life. Ditto the writings of Professor Samuel Angus.) 

I make no apologies for saying, or doing, any of the foregoing. If religion is to survive ansd have any meaning at all for future generations, then the choice is clear what we have to do---in the light of the discoveries of modern science, the damaged state of our planet, the divisive and tribal nature of much of traditional religion, and otherwise. Supernaturalism is the enemy of all true religion and all that is good and meaningful in it.

At the risk of stating the obvious, it is impossible to validate supernaturalism empirically. Why? Well, for a number of reasons, perhaps the main one being that supernaturalism---whatever that term actually means (assuming it can be given any intelligible meaning at all)---has no distinctive or even special empirical traits that would enable us to distinguish ‘it’ from naturalistic alternatives. In addition, despite the efforts of Christian apologists such as William Lane Craig (pictured below right), it is also impossible to validate supernaturalism philosophically. Why? Again, for a number of reasons, perhaps the main one being that any quality, trait or attribute that supposedly pertains to the purportedly supernatural that is asserted by proponents of belief in the supernatural to be ‘necessary’ to account for some naturalistic occurrence or event can always more reasonably be said to be attributable to the natural world itself or to be simply not necessary at all. 

I will have a bit more to say about the so-called supernatural later in this post. Suffice to say I have spent a fair bit of my life arguing against the idea of supernaturalism, and my PhD thesis sought to establish, among other things, that there can be real and meaningful religion without supernaturalism.

Non-theism

By ‘non-theistic’ I am referring to the rejection of all notions of traditional theism including the idea of a supernatural personal or super-personal being who, supposedly, is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving and everywhere present. (According to the Christian scriptures, this Being is said to have taken human form uniquely in the person of Jesus Christ, who, it is asserted, was both fully human as well as being divine.) I am, however, open to the idea of panentheism and what is known as predicate theology. I accept an amalgam of those ideas as a working hypothesis, but nothing more than that.

Allowing for such a worldview, what, then, is of ultimate importance or significance, assuming for the moment that there is anything that is! Reality, that’s what. What is reality? Well, reality is … what is … that is, life … that is, living things living out their livingness from one moment to the next. What could be more ‘ultimate’ than that? You see, if, as I think is the case, there is nothing over, beyond or outside of life itself (in the sense just described), and nothing against it or in any way in opposition to it, we must be dealing with something of supreme, indeed, ultimate importance, which transcends everything else in terms of importance and lasting value.

The ‘spiritual’

Now, the word view I have just described can, for the most part, be described and explained by reference to psychological mechanisms. I say ‘primarily’ because I take the view that there are some processes in the human psyche and go further---I did not say ‘beyond’---psychology as that term is ordinarily understood in Western psychology (but not Buddhist psychology). I refer to those processes as being ‘spiritual’ in nature.

Now, please understand that when I use the word ‘spiritual’ I am not referring to the so-called supernatural. Not at all. The word ‘spiritual’ is used, perhaps for want of a better word, to refer to those processes that cannot be described, or fully described, by a rational mind alone. Spirituality refers to non-physical and non-transient things such as faith, hope and charity as well as states of affairs or human consciousness which, going ‘beyond words’, are only partially (if at all) graspable by human concepts. We are talking about ‘things’ that cannot be seen but which are otherwise capable of being apprehended, if not fully understood. 

Here are some spiritual ideas. Perhaps the most important one, at least insofar as personal growth, transformation and recovery are concerned, is the idea that ‘self cannot change self.’ Then there’s the associated idea that only a ‘power-not-oneself’ can overcome the bondage of self. Even more fundamental is the idea that ‘self is an illusion.’ Traditional Western psychology has great problems with that idea. Indeed, the idea would appear to be inconsistent with the general thrust of Western psychology. 

Now, none of the ideas to which I have just referred, and which are the subject of many posts on this blog, require or depend upon any notions of ‘supernaturalism.’ Listen to these words from the late Australian Liberal Catholic bishop Lawrence W Burt (pictured left):

 
In a universe of LAW there can be no supernatural. There may be the super-physical, or super-normal, but there can be no super-natural. You cannot transcend Natural law, nor suspend it. [Original emphasis]

I don’t particularly like the words ‘super-physical’ and ‘super-normal,’ but I think I understand what the bishop is saying. I prefer the words ‘transnatural’ and ‘transrational’ [see below], but the important thing is that we need to eliminate the word ‘supernatural’ from our vocabulary. As I have said many times, it is simply impossible to conceive of there being any existence, or other order or level of reality, other than our ordinary ‘natural’ existence, that is, the way in which ordinary things exist in space and time. Any notion of there being different orders or levels of reality or truth is contrary to the very nature and possibility of discourse. It is unspeakable. Even the evangelical Anglican bishop and New Testament scholar N T Wright takes the view that the word 'supernatural' is highly problematic and dubious. Indeed, Wright has sought to avoid altogether notions of supernaturalism because he is so acutely aware of their inherent problems. He has written:

The great divide between the ‘natural’ and the ‘supernatural’, certainly in the way we use those words today, comes basically from the eighteenth century, bringing with it the whole debate about ‘miracles’.

Wright went on to say that anything that occurs or that is capable of occurring, whether perhaps under some conditions but not others, must be said to be ... natural! Even a so-called 'miracle' (not that I'm a believer in the latter, but that's another story).

The notion of a ‘higher power’ … or a ‘power-not-oneself’

Many people, especially those in 12-step programs, use the expression ‘higher power’ to refer to the ‘power-not-oneself’ that is invoked to relieve a person from the bondage of self. I personally dislike the term 'higher power' for two main reasons. First, because the term implies, if it doesn’t expressly necessitate, the existence of higher and lower levels or orders of reality---a concept which, as already mentioned, I find myself unable to accept. Secondly, the concept of a ‘higher power’ carries with it overtones of both supernaturalism and traditional theism although I accept that the concept certainly need not be construed in those terms nor do all who use the term accept or embrace those ideas.

Call it a ‘higher power’ or a ‘power-not-oneself’ (I prefer the latter)---in a sense, it doesn’t really matter. As J.Krishnamurti (pictured right) said many times, ‘The word is not the thing.’ It is the reality behind the word that is the important thing. You can call ‘it’ God if you like, but the problem with a word like ‘God’ is that the word has many unfortunate overtones for a great many people.

The ideas to which I refer are not in any way ‘supernatural’ as that idea is ordinarily understood. The ideas may, if you wish, be described as being transnatural or transrational. In that regard, Sir Julian Huxley, in an essay entitled ‘The New Divinity’ in his compilation book Essays of a Humanist, had this to say about the word ‘divine’, after first reminding his readers that ‘the term divine did not originally imply the existence of gods: on the contrary, gods were constructed to interpret [our] experiences of this quality’:

For want of a better, I use the term divine, though this quality of divinity is not truly supernatural but transnatural---it grows out of ordinary nature, but transcends it. The divine is what man finds worthy of adoration, that which compels his awe.

I like Huxley’s description of the ‘divine’---something that is ‘transnatural’ in the sense that it ‘grows out of ordinary nature, but transcends it.’ The spiritual ideas to which I have just referred pertaining to the self and a power-not-oneself come from a ‘place’ (ugh) that is much more powerful than the rational mind, Call it transnatural or transrational, it is anything but irrational or (heaven forbid) ‘unnatural.’ The ideas ‘work’ psychologically, that is, in and through the medium and mechanisms of human consciousness, even if some aspects of the ideas or mechanisms involved are or at least appear to be oxymoronic or at least counter-intuitive in nature.

Now, what if it be the case that you, the reader, embrace supernaturalism and maybe also the concept of a traditional God or gods? Can mindfulness ‘work’ for you? Of course, it can, if you are prepared to do what is required to live and act mindfully. If you choose to believe in the 'supernatural', that does not prevent you from practising mindfulness. The latter does not require any beliefs at all. For what it’s worth, I think mindfulness works best without any beliefs at all, as beliefs operate as a barrier to what would otherwise be a direct and immediate experience of reality---but that’s a matter for each individual to grapple with.

Don’t try---let!

Recently, a friend of mine---let’s call her Nancy (not her real name)---said to me, ‘I’ve tried mindfulness---it’s not my cup of tea.’ Now, Nancy is very well-educated and extremely skeptical (which is OK with me), but I’m not sure she really understands what mindfulness is all about. You see, mindfulness means simply being and staying awake at all times ... from one moment to the next. Mindfulness is living---and being aware at all times that you are living, and not just existing. Another thing---you don't ‘try’ mindfulness. If you ‘try’ to do this sort of thing you will fail. You must let it happen. It's a spiritual process. For Nancy to say, 'I’ve tried mindfulness---it’s not my cup of tea,' is like saying, 'I've tried living---it’s not my cup of tea.' Mindfulness is simply living in the moment, from moment to moment. I said to Nancy, ‘Mindfulness is actually just living---with your eyes open at all times---and any sensible, rational person like yourself would want to do that at all times.’

Actually, in a very profound sense mindfulness is not something you ‘do.’ It simply happens when you remove the barriers to it happening (eg judging, analyzing, etc). Mindfulness is not a 'thing' at all. It is 'no-thing', that is, letting life unfold from one moment to the next. All you have to do is ... stay awake ... watch ... observe ... and be choicelessly aware of what is unfolding as your life experience. It means being aware that you are actually aware. 'To be awake is to be alive,' wrote Henry David Thoreau. I love those words.

I also love what the Zen master said to his then not so-enlightened student (who had asked the master what he had to do in order to become enlightened), 'Whatever you do, don't think of the white monkey.' Of course, you know what happened then. All the poor student could think of was---yes, the whote monkey. You see, thinking about not thinking about the white monkey is the same as thinking about the white monkey. Trying not to think about the white monkey results in your thinking about the white monkey. Now, how did I get onto that? Forgive me.

So, never, never ‘try’ to ‘do’ mindfulness. Just ‘let’ it happen---and ‘let go.’ Few things are more important than that.

RELATED POSTS

RELIGION WITHOUT SUPERNATURALISM

WHY THE TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF GOD IS CONTRADICTORY

ASPIRITUAL GUIDE TO MINDFUL LIVING

IS MINDFULNESS A RELIGION?

DALAI LAMA SAYS 'MINDFULNESS IS NOT RELIGIOUS'

FORGET ABOUT HAVING A ‘TRANSCENDENTAL’ EXPERIENCE!

BETTER TO NOT BELIEVE AT ALL

THE KINGDOM OF GOD---WHAT IS IT?

At the outset, I should make it clear---and I make no apology for this---that I will, throughout this post, be using the ‘God’ word a far bit.

Of course, the word ‘God’, if one uses it at all, means different things to different people. For some, there is no objective referent at all to the word ‘God’, and I respect that position as well. As Krishnamurti (pictured left) used to say, ‘The word is not the thing.’ It’s the reality behind the word that matters. In other words, don't get hung oup on the word ('God')---instead, focus on the reality behind, and beyond, the word.

For me, the word ‘God’ refers to the ever-present spirit of life---that is, the very livingness of all life, the essential oneness of all life, and the self-givingness of life to itself so as to perpetuate itself. I also use the word ‘God’ to refer to our innate potential perfectibility, as well as to what I regard as being the sacred, the holy. As regards the latter, I find that sense of the sacred or holy essentially in the enchantment of everyday life---in the ordinary as opposed to the extraordinary, and in the natural world as opposed to some supposed supernatural world.

Being something of a panentheist (that is, one who affirms that this God to which I refer is the ground of all being, is in all things, and all things are in God---but all things are not God), I reject all traditional notions of theism as well as the notion that there is a supernatural order, level or dimension to life. I find the sacred or the holy in, as already mentioned, the enchantment of everyday life, as well as in all of life, and especially in those more enlightened human beings who have blessed us with their presence, teachings and example.

Jesus preached the 'Kingdom of God' (referred to in Matthew’s gospel as the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’). The Kingdom of God is a past, present and future reality, all at the same time, and whereas the Jews of Jesus’ day were expecting the coming of the Kingdom, it was an earthly kingdom they were expecting. Jesus, however, speaks of an altogether different type of kingdom---namely, a spiritual or heavenly one.

The Kingdom of God is a past reality because it has been in ‘preparation’---and been prepared for us---from the very foundation of the world (‘the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world’ (Mt 25:34)).

The Kingdom of God is also a present reality. Jesus said many things about the Kingdom of God but perhaps his greatest pronouncement on the Kingdom was this--- ‘the kingdom of God is within you’ (Lk 17:21). This is the true ‘good news’ of the Christian gospel. As a present reality, Jesus revealed that the Kingdom of God was already present in his own life, and he said repeatedly that the same could also be true for you and me. (He never claimed anything for himself that he did not also claim for you and me.) Jesus as Way-Shower formed a community of likeminded people who strove, in steadfast service, to be a living model of God’s reign on earth.  It was Jesus who said, ‘I have come that [you] may have life, and that [you] may have it more abundantly’ (Jn 10:10). Abundant life---that’s what he’s on about. Life with a capital ‘l.’

The Kingdom of God is also a future reality. Yes, the Kingdom of God has always been, and is now, but is also not as yet. Such is life. It is forever unfolding from one moment to the next. It is always in a state of completed uncompleteness---or, if you wish, uncompleted completeness. It amounts to the same thing.

Life is past, present and future---but mostly ‘present,’ in the sense that it is always … now! For me, the Kingdom of God is the Eternal Now. There is an ‘eternal’ quality about the Now. It is forever new. The present moment has its unfolding in the Now. The past---in the form of memories, inherited characteristics and tendencies, as well as the karmic consequences of past actions---all that is no more than the expression of a ‘present’ reality, being a present ‘window link’ to the eternity of the Now. It’s the same as respects the future---any ideas about or hopes for the future are present ideas and hopes. You see, the present is simply that which presents itself before us in the Now---so the present embraces past, present and future.

The Kingdom of God is the very livingness of life itself, as it endlessly and ceaselessly unfolds from one moment to the next. You live and move and have your very be-ing-ness in this kingdom. It is the very presence----indeed, omnipresence---of your life. If you want happiness, and peace of mind, and power to change the things in your life that you know need to be changed---and who doesn’t----the only 'place' (for want of a better word) where you can find those things is 'in' (that is, within) this kingdom.

Only a fool would seek to look for those 'things' (happiness, peace of mind, and personal power) elsewhere----but there are many such fools. Sadly, the churches are full of them. I say that not at all self-righteously, but I do say it with a certain anger, for I am sick and tired of conventional so-called ‘Bible-believing Christians’ distorting the simple message of Jesus and making silly and implausible claims for Jesus that he did not make for himself (for example, that he was God is a unique and exclusive sense) as well as for the Bible that the Bible does not make fot itself (for example, that the Bible is infallible and inerrant). I tell you this---there will be no peace in the world until that sort of thinking is thoroughly purged. For my part, for so long as there is breath in me, I will continue to rail against such 'thinking' and those who 'think' (ha!) such things.

Never forget this. The Kingdom of God, which always has been, is here now---but the kingdom is also not as yet. Stay awake. Be ever mindful---as the kingdom continues to becomes an ongoing future reality as well … from one moment to the next. Angels---assuming for the moment there are any---can do no better.

RELATED POST

MINDFULNESS AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD