Some Implications of DarwinPlus
(1)
There are more things in heaven and earth…
W Shakespeare
The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of existence
Nikola Tesla
I can’t duck this one any longer: Is there a God? Well, any Mind which can create a universe or pandimensional polyverse, or whatever, must surely qualify as such. But is this God the normally accepted Christian image of God, who is on the one hand loving and forgiving, and on the other hand vengeful, spiteful, and out to get you? This was part of what Darwin had a big problem with.
Clearly, as Big Mind created All, Big Mind is closer to us than our own heartbeat, as someone once said. This is simple logic, as everything must be of and in this Big Mind, including our own lesser Minds, as there is literally nowhere else to be. Right?
§ Of course sone philosophers will claim no necessary connection between Creator and Created. I find this to be unreasonable, particularly given the vast evidence for eg paranormal events and experiences. Something clearly occasionally connects with something, albeit in sometimes unexpected manners (NDE’s etc…). Some people call this Something ‘God’ or some similar term or aspect thereof. I have no better term for this great Mystery. Some New Age thinkers prefer ‘the Source’. You choose.
I personally find the ‘Christian God‘ to be confusing, and if mixed in with Yahweh, contradictory. Instead, I have come to favour the Yogic/Esoteric/Buddhist view that this issue is not worth getting over-excited about as there are layers upon layers of Mind (and ‘Beyond’) in the Universe at Large, and the Original Cause is so far beyond our possible comprehension (this side of panmentia/omniscience) that it’s more rational to just obey the Golden Rule, and thus find happiness in the moment. Job done. You’ll find out more in a Higher world after you’ve graduated from samsara. Be patient.
§ There is a Zen story about a monk who spent his whole life cutting wood and carrying water. After decades of living selflessly, he achieved Enlightenment and the secrets of the universe were thus revealed to him. What did he do then? He carried on cutting wood and carrying water.
Each one of us has our own path to tread, and we will eventually learn what we need to, and complete our karmic ‘duties’, and move on to higher things. Patience, persistence…. being in and valuing the present moment as there is nowhere else to be. There is a biblical comment that would seem to support this: ‘Let us also rejoice in our tribulations; knowing that tribulation worketh patience.’ (Romans 5:3).
This brings us back to Karma and Reincarnation, I think. Mainstream Christianity and Islam might have problems with reincarnation, but Muslim Sufis and Druze are happy with it, and many non-dogmatised Christians have come to accept it as reasonable. Judaism is pretty relaxed about it, especially via the Kabbalah, and Hinduism/Buddhism regards it as essential.
D+ might encourage a few more people to think it over. Does Karma + Reincarnation make logical sense? If so, we should take it seriously. Does it seem to explain a few things previously inexplicable? (As per the list in Chapter 13?) Yes, it does seem to. And does it challenge the basic requirements of Christianity: ie, that there is a benevolent Higher being, so be like him and be nice? Not at all! It is entirely compatible. It would even help to make sense of the depressing ‘Christian’ idea that we are all ‘born sinners’. If we substitute ‘karmic ‘debtors’/workers’ for ‘born sinners’, then reason, balance and ‘niceness’ return. In fact the whole notion of ‘original sin’, which has worried/baffled believers and non-believers alike for centuries, may be elegantly replaced by the more rational notion of personal/group/racial karmic responsibility, effort, and progress.
Some Christians I’ve met claim that you can get to heaven only ‘via Christ’. Do they mean via the personal influence of (or rescue by) Jesus, or by becoming Christed oneself? The following passage might help to resolve this…
D+ agrees with Christianity that Heaven and Hell lie ‘within you’, as Jesus said (Luke 17:21). Ie Heaven and Hell are conditions of Mind. A clear conscience is the key and that comes from choosing to obey the Golden Rule. This gives peace of mind, which is ‘Heaven’. ‘Hell’ is what you choose for yourself by the bad decisions you make, as witnessed by your conscience. If you are a bad lot, you are not pitchforked into Hell by God’s demons; (any demons will be of your own expectation and creation). You just gravitate, by a magnetic/vibratory/resonatory attraction, to beings and surroundings of a similar vibe to yourself, in which your predominant thoughts and feelings rule your existence. You choose your own ‘mansion’, and will remain there, suffering your own wretched state of mind, and comparable company, until you choose to move on. Choice! Freedom to think and choose, always. When you choose to move Upwards, you will find a guide. NDEs confirm this. But will it be Jesus? Cause and Effect, Will, Expectation, and Vibe seem to be the important factors in determining what occurs at ‘death’, so if you expect Jesus to meet you and greet you, then that might/will happen. Similarly with Muhammad, of course, or Buddha (or ‘demons’, as above). Your own karmic record will also be relevant (see ‘demons’ again!)
Yogic/Esoteric wisdom claims that there are infinite levels and grades of Mind and Morality. The higher you rise, via your own choices, the more Mind and Morality merge. A Buddha is a being whose Mind and Morality are perfectly integrated. He has thus passed out from the samsaric cycle of birth and rebirth, to the Higher level, called Nirvana. ‘Christ’ is seen in the same way, as a condition, like Buddhahood, to which all Men aspire and will eventually reach. In other words ‘Christ’ is not one particular person, but an integrated level of being, accessible to all. And nobody can achieve the Higher world (‘Enlightenment’; ‘The Light of the World’) without making the effort and achieving ‘Christhood’ for himself. Thus, one can reach Heaven only via ‘Christ’ but not in the traditionally understood way of being rescued by Jesus in person. The NT hints at this, for example in Galatians 4:19: ‘My little children, of whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you.’ This, I think, must be the real meaning of being ‘born again’.
§ If ‘Christ’ is an elevated level of existence, rather than one particular person, then one awful predicament for Christians is immediately removed: ie, what happens to a devout and kindly Hindu/Pagan who does not exclusively ‘Believe in Christ’, as he might never have even heard of him? Is he doomed to Hell? Clearly not, if D+ is correct, as there will be many other ‘Christed’ Beings to help him along. It seems the early Church was more concerned with ‘Christ’ than with Jesus. This would make sense, considering that Jesus’ consistent message to his disciples (‘Ye are gods’… etc). Acts 2:36 is pretty clear about ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ being separate entities: ‘Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.‘
Do we have ‘souls’? D+ is clear that Life is forever, and Man (or any other life) can not die. He simply evolves, via his own choices, from his present caterpillar state to full butterfly, and beyond. It would seem that a Soul in an intermediary condition between an incarnate being and the Source/God/Allah/etc. Michael Newton’s Destiny of Souls is a fascinating if somewhat boggling read.
Religious people can get very wound up about sin and evil and guilt. D+ can help here. Forget ‘sin’ as something you have to weep over forever until an angry God pitchforks you into Hellfire. This is all stuff made up by priests to keep you under their power, or at best, to concentrate your flighty and irresponsible mind for your own good. What is a sin? It’s a mistake you made. You ‘missed the mark’.
§ It seems that the original Greek text uses the word ‘hamartia’ which has consistently been translated as ‘sin’. However, it appears that a much closer translation is ‘missing the mark’. The profound importance of this translation error(?) is not widely known, Pity…. it removes the horror from ‘sin’. Countless millions of people might have been spared endless agonies of guilt.
That’s all. And who suffers by it? The person/s you harmed, and yourself. That’s all. The Law of Karma will sort out the rebalancing procedure automatically, so you don’t need to worry about it. If you make a mistake (and your conscience will constantly remind you of the Golden Rule) then all you need to do is say ‘Woops.. that was wrong’ and then apologise to the offended party, and also to yourself. Then you choose to make good the harm, if possible, and choose to never repeat the error.. and stick to this. That’s all you need to do. Bit by bit you will perfect yourself. And each time you take a further step, by your own actions, towards the Christhood/Enlightenment that you so (possibly subconsciously) long for.
And every step of the way you will be in ‘Heaven’, meaning a state with no guilty conscience, and a happy and positive view of the world, knowing you are making genuine progress. You are ‘saved’ because you are ‘safe’.
§ There is a saying in The Church, deriving from the Book of Ecclesiastes ‘Vanity vanity.. all is vanity’. I reckon that about sums it up, relating Man’s petty selfish arrogances against the vast eternal Plan. A Muslim would say that ‘submission’ (ie ‘Islam’) is the way to negate this personal vanity.
Occam and his razor would agree that we don’t need to invent a ‘devil’ to account for all the evil in the world. We just need people making bad choices, meaning ‘selfish choices’. Remove all selfishness from the world and what do you have? A world full of selfless people, meaning a world full of saints. No evil. Everyone happy. Heaven on Earth.
§ What about ‘natural evil’, as in earthquakes etc? The doctrine of Karma claims that we have not only personal karma, but family, regional, national and global karma, as we each affect the all via the karmic ripple effect. Each act and word and thought we make is powerful and effective at levels we currently never consider. The Earth is in some way a living being, it seems. A build-up of bad karma, brought about by Man’s selfishness, particularly in matters concerning the well-being of the Earth, via pollution, deforestation, destruction of resources, etc, will need to be balanced out somehow. Hence the occasional cataclysm. (This seems to tie in nicely with the Gaia Theory, mentioned in Chapter 20.)
No.. I don’t like it either, but it is a rational extension of Idealism and the principle of the Law of Karma. The only alternative ‘religious’ explanation I have heard is that God hates us. Well, maybe He does, (and frankly, who could blame Him?) but all the great religions do seem to claim the opposite.
There is another point I like even less, but can’t deny the rationality of it… If the Law of Karma is correct, then all those beautiful innocent children who get killed and maimed in earthquakes are quite likely to have been the thugs and torturers who were so hated, possibly by you, in a previous life. Now they are paying the price. A ghastly prospect. But might it be true? By what reasoning might it not be, given all the previous chapters? What’s more, the karmic web is so vast and subtle that the death of a child might be for the karmic benefit of its parents (or others)… for them to experience the grief they once gave someone else. After all, the ‘dead’ child is no such thing. S/he has merely returned to the Higher, where s/he will be appropriately welcomed.
It is worth considering here that our ‘evil’ acts, ie, errors of selfishness, will also act as lessons and devices for focussing our attention upon the moral choices we make in the future. Our conscience may be finally stirred into action by something we did that we know was mean, for example. Hence ‘evil’ may produce long-term positivity. Hence the expression ‘There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so’, as Hamlet explained to Shakespeare.
What about suicide? D+ says this is just tragic, as no good can be achieved by it. You came to this life to meet certain karmic challenges, and to thus grow in stature. But when the challenge arrived, you ducked it. The good news is that you are not cast into a pit full of screeching demons and politicians. You just have to return one day, knowing you’ve delayed your progress a little, not least by the extra karmic debt you incurred for the emotional harm you may have caused others by your act.
Death is no big deal. Unless you are hit by an accident (if there is such a thing, in a world where Karma is king) you gradually detach from your physical form. Focus fades, energy fades, your priorities shift; you may have vivid dreams or visions of loved ones who have previously ‘died’. Slowly you drift apart from your physical entity and then it seems you do one of the symbolic (mythic?) things reported by Near Death Experiencers. You cross a stream, or go through a gate, or down a tunnel.. to meet old friends and loved ones. And you will indeed meet ‘a Being of Light’ en route, who will lovingly guide you onwards.
There’s no room for more here, but there are a lot of helpful books out there if you are interested. A good one is Life After Life by Dr Raymond Moody.
No devil, no pit (unless that is your own personal expectation: you create your own reality of Heaven and Hell, guided by your conscience). No judgement, even, except for the judgement you yourself make upon yourself, as everyone reportedly does after the ‘transition’ when your ‘whole life passes before your eyes’ to remind you of your successes and failures. After all, it’s your gig, and you are personally responsible for every aspect of your personal growth, in This world and the Other. And you will always be helped by others, which compensates a little. Clearly, the thoughtforms set up by excessive mourning are likely to hinder the deceased on his journey, and not help him.
D+ suggests that the only meaningful ‘sacrifice’ one can make is of Lower, monkey-world stuff (ie, selfishness in the guise of animal passions like anger and greed) in favour of Higher elements like kindness, respect and sharing. The traditional word ‘pride’ covers most of these selfish elements, although general ‘lust’ would seem to be just an Animal/monkey, (ie ‘Lower’) behaviour.
§ Is ‘anger’ selfish? Yes it is, as are seven of the ten behaviours that the Commandments warn us against. ‘Anger’ arises when one of our endless (and ultimately unsatisfiable) desires has not been satisfied. It’s that ‘Me me me ‘ element again… as in covetousness, envy, (rapacious) lust, etc.
A sacrifice must involve joyfully rejecting some selfish (as opposed to ‘personal’) pleasure. It should be seen as a positive step and not a negative one. The translation of Matthew 5:3 as ‘blessed are the poor in spirit’ should be seen in the light of ‘spirit’ meaning ‘pride’ or ‘egotism’, rather than ‘blessed is the wimp’.
§ This principle of sacrifice came to be grotesquely perverted to the point of sacrificing thousands of animals in many cultures, or thousands of prisoners in others; even of grooming youngsters for ritual murder. This still goes on in the selfish Hell-world of the suicide bomber. Murder is still carried out for ‘religious’ and for (selfish) witchcraft purposes in Kenya, Benin, Tanzania and South Africa, and most probably elsewhere, even in unexpected loci.
As St Peter put it: ‘Add to your faith, virtue; and to virtue, knowledge’ (II Peter 1:5). Muhammad’s version was ‘Seeking knowledge is an obligation upon every Muslim’.
The danger of blind Belief alone, including blind Skepticism, is addressed in John 8:32: ‘Know the truth and the truth shall make you free.’ To the same end, Buddha said ‘The only sin is ignorance’ (…meaning ignorance of how the universe works and why, because once you understand a little of this you will begin to see the point of treading the selfless path towards the proper communion of Humanity).
D+ offers a reasoned and logical approach to learning something of this Truth. At least, so it seems to me. What do you think?
Other Implications of DarwinPlus (D+)
(2)
Theories have four stages of acceptance:
1) this is worthless nonsense
2) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view
3) this is true but quite unimportant
4) I always said so
JBS Haldane
Religion cannot be opposed to the intellect
Tolstoy
The less we believe, the more we are likely to discover
Chris Affing
Do you find this text of interest? If so, so will other people. Please pass on the bad-dogma.org link to two more people…. three or four if you like! Thanks!