I am indebted to Lucy Green who inspired this conversation.
It's been said so much it's nearly trite, almost a
were easy, the whole world would be
contrary to what we wish and hope and would like it to be, isn't a
or a condition or a permanent high. It's an ongoing
act of word, an ongoing spoken
To have it, you speak it over and over and over and over and over
again. Then, when you've done that, you speak it over and over and over
and over and over again some more. Sorry about that. It doesn't simply
happen by itself. Even if it peeks, surprisingly,
titillatingly, out from the shadows teasing to be known, it won't stay.
If it doesn't stay it's not
If it doesn't stay, at best it's a peak experience.
is quite deliberate. Like any deliberate act it ends the instant it's
You could even say
is an unnatural act. Life, by itself, doesn't provide
It's not your birthright. There's no guarantee of it. It's not
promised to every human being. In this sense, you could also say
is unfair. People cue their lives off the occurring
world ie the way the world occurs for them. Ironically that's
an almost surefire way to never get and to not provide for the
For possibility to become real, it requires an interruption, a
decisive interference in the way things are already
turning out. For
to become real, it also requires an interruption, a decisive
interference in the way we're already experiencing things.
I'm speaking with a friend who seems quite certain we
(that's her and you and I) can't interfere in the way things are
already turning out - without help. By inference she's also
implying we can't interfere in the way we're already experiencing
things. She says help can only come from
In essence I don't have an issue with her assertion. What I let pass,
for the time being at least, is she hasn't yet distinguished who she
really is ... and ... until she distinguishes who
she really is, she's really barricading herself away from having an
settling instead for a common (albeit well loved and widely held)
She's adamant, quite vociferous actually, when she says there's a hard
line separating man from
In her belief system unity is out of the question. In her
it's not even possible to have blurred edges. Sinful little man
down below. Judgemental big
God up on high. And ne'er the twain shall meet. That's it.
She's the way people occasionally get when expounding on man's true
nature: imposingly righteous but, assuming it helps, in an
endearing way. I love her zest.
She argues enthusiastically. Her point of view, based on
blind concept rather than on distinguishing experience,
gives her a charmingly naïve sense of certainty.
She challenges me. "If you're
even if you're only one withGod,
me a tree!".
"OK" I say, looking around slowly, carefully taking in the splendid
forest in which we sit. I see a majestic Douglas Fir at least a hundred
feet tall. I point to it. "That one!".
She's silent for a moment. Then she says: "But that one already exists.
me a tree - like
I point again to the Douglas Fir. "That is the tree I
She ends the conversation right there, not responding, sitting safely
in the saddle of her belief. She doesn't continue because if she
confronts bringing the light of
to bear on her belief, her belief will disappear. In and of itself,
that's not inherently something to be concerned about. It simply comes
back to the deliberate act of
Beliefs and concepts aren't deliberate acts.
When I look from my experience I see
what is. That's when I see all the struggle and effort is what I add. I
suppose you could say when you realize that, you're saved.
doesn't require that implication or that belief system or that concept