I've just started reading the centuries-old book The Dark Night Of The Soul, by Juan de la Cruz (John of the Cross). Seems interesting so far.
One of the points he brings up is that people who consider themselves less than others are further in their journey towards Source/god than people who consider themselves more than others.
I wonder if it's true. Isn't that kind of humility just inverted pride?
I think it's much more true to recognize that if you feel pride or humility, it doesn't matter. It's just the ego's games, and will blow over in time. The truth is neither, since any separation and differences between yourself and others is an illusion.
Source is Source.
God is.
The rest isn't.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
About spirituality and coming home to Source. By Eolake Stobblehouse, studying multiple branches of spirituality for 30+ years.
"Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists. Herein lies the peace of God”
- A Course In Miracles
About Me
- Eolake Stobblehouse
- Born in Denmark, living currently in England. I write about creativity and communication and technology which supports those. And about spirituality/metaphysics.
Posts
2 comments:
"Isn't that kind of humility just inverted pride?"
It depends on the inner context of the man saying this (I don't know anything about him), the inner canvas these words are painted on ...
If there is an ego, saying "I'm further developped than you, I'm holier than you", or something like this, then I agree with you, adding that the "holy ego" seems to me very common in the "spiritual scene", sometimes very hard to see (especially for oneself), because it is able to hide itself so effectively. But one can develop a sense for it, some kind of "bullshit-alarm", smelling it like a smoke detector.
On the other side, every enlightened master trying to express truth is doing an impossible job, and he knows it. How to express the non-dual mystery of existence with necessarily dual words? How to paint on an inner canvas of nothingness?
Sometimes great poets are able to give a glimpse, transcending words rather with the vibration between words than with the words themselves.
I'm reminded on the old Latin proverb: "Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi", meaning: What's allowed for God Jupiter is not allowed for any stupid man.
If you have to use words, the negative approach seems to me basically (at least mostly) more accurate than the positive one, if you want to point to non-duality, to nothingness ... e.g.
-"non-dual" rather instead of "one" (because "one" implies already, that there are also two, and so on),
- metaphers like "peeling away the many layers of illusion/maya/ego like peeling an onion" rather instead of "raising the consciousness",
- "nirvana" (literally meaning "going out of the candle") rather instead of "enlightenment",
... and so on. But still, misunderstanding is happening anyway.
So, "nothingness is, and this is all",
or "God is, the rest isn't"? What to say?
Maybe nothing.
Listening to the sound of silence.
I remember Osho saying, pointing in the same direction (quoted as I remember):
"God and you as an ego cannot coexist:
Either you are, then God is not,
or God is and you are not ..."
And:
"Don't listen to my words,
but to the silence between the words.
Words come and go, but silence remains ..."
namaste
neeraj
Thanks.
Part of the problem is that there's an ocean of Fear stopping us from seeing Truth.
Post a Comment