Within: God, Nietzsche, Jesus, Siddhartha
According to the American Heritage dictionary, 'God' is defined as -
1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
3. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
4. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
5. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
6. A very handsome man.
7. A powerful ruler or despot.
No wonder there are wars waged in 'His' name... this 'God' is a being, this 'God' is a male deity, this 'God' is an image, an idol, this 'God' is one - the only one - that is worshiped (or else!) and 'God' can even be a handsome devil... even a ruler (thankfully not a yardstick).
Most importantly, we the pious, really have no understanding of what or who this 'God' is. Followers of 'God' (include 'Allah' in this) all have their own vision of what or who this 'God-thing' is: from a being that made everything (but not himself, apparently) to one that has control over all that is and all that ever was. We really have no choices, even though we were given choices, as to our outcome. Everything is in 'His' hands. In this day and age, many 'see' this 'God' as a bearded man sitting upon a throne with swirls of clouds surrounding 'Him' and with a twinkle in 'His' eyes he watches everything we do... somewhat of a Santa Claus that doles out great gifts to those who do great things and lumps of coal (from the fires of Hell) to those that are bad, bad, bad.
In part, I agree with Friedrich Nietzsche, when he declared "God is dead." This three-letter word, G-O-D, has no real importance in truly defining the ultimate One that monotheism is built upon. The word is used to give both hope and fear to believers... something outside themselves that has ultimate power over them. Little has been written about the within... our inner being. When the word 'God' is used there is a signal that goes off in our minds, our conditioned minds, that alerts us to a state of caution - we better use this word 'God' reverently... don't use it negatively or else 'He' may unleash 'His' powers upon us and take our lives away and cast us into the endless fires of a geographical Hell to burn forever without dying, forever in pain and agony for denying 'His' existence (male figure, of course!). Extreme behavior for any being, especially one that is a father figure. But the Bible has reinforced this by using this one word, 'God' as The Word that shall be the only defining word for the absolute one-ness of existence, i.e., 'God the Father.' This denies yin/yang, masculine/feminine duality which is incumbent on existence.
Arguably, this one word, God, can easily become 'one being' that is worshiped and idealized. This 'one being' suggests one outside our own being... someone that we should follow. No suggestion that this being is within each of us. Although within the Bible itself, Luke 17:20-21 states: "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." Old Matthew remembered a powerful thing Jesus said. But this 'kingdom of God is within you' has not been overly emphasized by preachers of the Bible's New Testament, (possibly because they don't fully understand it). "The Kingdom cometh not with observation" means this 'kingdom' is not outside ourself to be viewed as a physical phenomenon, but an inner experience that transcends observation, 'neither shall they say Lo here! or Lo there!' for it is within and only within...
So much has been written in this Bible that it is easy for followers to pick and choose anything they want from it and defend their choices by simply saying the words are from 'God'. That is apparently enough to stop questioning in its tracks. Who among the faithful would dare question this 'God' that spoke through 'His son, Jesus'? God forbid!
And so we are left with a God that strikes fear in the flock of believers. Not a good message for those particular faithful to the word 'God' that is not fully understood. In this context, 'God' should be ignored as the word suspends questioning, and it is questioning that, if agreed that 'God' has given us, is at odds with 'His' own gift.
Siddhartha Gautama became the Buddha because of his enlightenment. After his search ended with his meditations with his own realization of the "Kingdom of God within" (not what you'll read in Buddhist texts), Siddhartha began his preachings of this state of Nirvana (Heaven) and how one could achieve it. His suggestions, his teachings were not so different from those of Jesus. His message was for people to understand their own 'Buddha Nature', the Christ within. Siddhartha had more time to preach than Jesus - he lived for 80 years (563 - 483 BCE) to preach the message. Jesus had a far shorter time, 30+ years. Hardly enough time, but enough to convert many of his time and beyond. Why the message of Jesus was found to be threatening to the power base of his environment that he preached to is at odds with Buddha's preachings in his time. For Siddhartha to have lived to a ripe old age of 80 and not posing any threat to his establishment is an interesting contemplation. I've often wondered whether Jesus' declaration that he was the 'son of God' was the threat to both the Jews and Romans. By his apparent saying that made him, Jesus, far superior over others, given the power of the word 'God'. Either that or his attitude towards the sick and poor were somehow a financial threat to the then establishment. But whatever reason we choose for the early death of Jesus, his maturity in teaching was never fully realized. Given more time, this one man could have brought much more than he did had he been given more time to develop a greater understanding of the message of 'Know Thy Self' to the region that he lived in and the shortened message that remains as his legacy.
The teachings of the Buddha were apparently not viewed as any threat to his establishment, his politicians and power elite. If so, he might have met with an early death himself. Buddha never said he was the Son of God, but acknowledged enlightenment ('Kingdom within') as attainable for all. But given the time that the far east, i.e., India, China, etc., had known about this 'inner being' from teachings and preachings possibly far earlier than Siddartha himself, may have a great deal to do with the massive acceptance of Buddha's words without incrimination. Siddartha had years to teach the message he learned from his enlightenment. Finding the "Kingdom within" was/is a right of all individuals to attain. The world would be a far better place for all if more focus was placed upon finding our enlightenment within versus sheepish acceptance of a power outside ourselves that we can never be connected to except through belief in words and translations never fully comprehended.
Cecil
29 October 2006
Neo-Tribal Necklace w/ Earrings
Designed and Created by Cecil
Designed and Created by Cecil
