Towards A Theory of Spiritual Relativity

Virtual Chaos

A Work in Progress
Copyright 1995-2000 VirtualChaos.Org.
All Rights Reserved. Void where Prohibited.

One of the biggest stumbling blocks to peace on earth is religious intolerance. Why should Jews and Muslims be so opposed ideologically when they both claim to be descendent of the same man, and both claim to worship the same single god worshiped by this common ancestor? Why do fundamentalist Christians love their neighbors by bombing abortion clinics? And what do Hindus need with an atomic bomb? Obviously What we need most if we are going to find some way to live together in a sustainable peace, is a way to translate spiritual lessons and concepts between one tradition and another. What we really need, is the spiritual equivalent of Relativity.

Much progress has been made in this direction on many different fronts, but a single standard of translation between any two religious traditions still eludes us. This problem can be traced directly to two major issues; First each tradition uses a different symbolic language to express what are essentially the same universal truths, and second, none of these symbolic languages is truly adequate to describe what is actually a spiritual experience. An experience that can only be accomplished by the individual, and then, only by the individual alone. [Although when people who are experiencing, this form of consciousness come together, its effects seem to be magnified exponentially].

All of the various scriptures of the different religions are little more than an attempt to express something which is inexpressible with words alone. For example, if I explain love by saying that my heart was racing, my palms grew sweaty, I had butterflies in my stomach, and I did not know what to say, those people who had experienced this would immediately sympathize with what I was trying to say. On the other hand, those who had not had this experience, might justifiably conclude that I was merely having some kind of anxiety attack. [Maybe they would be right to some extent]. Only your personal experience would allow you to sympathize with what I was trying to express. Furthermore, although that description might be enough for you to know what sensation I was referring to, it is not the sensation, and thus totally inadequate insofar as explaining what love actually is. Love transcends words.

That's the whole problem in a nutshell. All religions are stuck using words to try to express an experience, that by it's very nature, transcends words themselves. The experience they seek to explain, ultimately cannot be explained, only experienced. This is the reason that religions usually attempt to teach their lessons through the use of parable, analogy and metaphor.

When a religion gets bogged down in the words of the lessons, it cannot help but lose the spirit of the experience. This usually is brought about by fear and uncertainty, [plenty of that to go around], and results in a fundamentalist interpretation of whatever scripture is involved. By making the words themselves literal and unchanging, any ambiguity or uncertainty can be disregarded, at the expense of the lessons that those words were being used to teach. When what is being said takes a backseat to how it is said, people begin to fight over the correct way to convey the same message.

Most religions pretty much really do convey the same message. This is because they are all based on the same spiritual experience. The problem is that there is no way to convey what this experience is really like with words alone. Many people have tried to do this throughout history, only to have people focus on the words they used to try to share this experience, instead of actually focusing on seeking the experience itself. As a result, millions of people have been put to death simply because they expressed the same spiritual experience in a way that differed from the words used by whomever was in power at the time. [Until we actually have a system of spiritual relativity, this is still a threat today].

Often times the words used to describe this spiritual experience are said to be a direct quote from god. And while the experience itself is undoubtedly spiritually divine in origin, the words that the individual uses to convey it to others, are nothing more than a direct reflection of their own understanding of the experience. [The information that the individual as able to receive is directly related to the level of sophistication with which it can formulate the question]. Nevertheless, those who sympathize with these words tend to claim that they are the one and only true words of god. Woe be onto anyone who would consider otherwise.

The most relevant example of this would probably be found in the early Christian church. The first Christians considered Jesus nothing more than a progressive rabbi. Actually Jesus is the Greek translation of the Hebrew name Yoshua(?), Rabbi Yoshua Ben Jacob. [Q1 is the name scholars give to the earliest written record of the saying of Rabbi Ben Jacob] They held up Rabbi Ben Jacob as an example of what was expected of the individual, in order to live their life in communion with god. The first written record of Rabbi Ben Jacob's teachings were not even put to paper for some twenty years after his death. [As an example; imagine having to write the saga of "Roots" today from memory]. The four gospels of the new testament were all written some 50 - 90 years after the fact. [We actually don't even know who really wrote them].

Now consider the fact that by the time the New Testament was put together, there were hundreds and hundreds of writings concerning Rabbi Ben Jacob, now called Jesus Christ [Yoshua, The Anointed One], his life, and his message. So how did all the books of the New Testament get included, [and then become the literal word of god?] While all the rest came to be regarded as heretical teachings? It was a conference of religious guys. Mundane humans decided which books would be included, and which books would not. Why may surprise you.

This conference I spoke of took place at a very pivotal time in history. You see the Emperor Constantine of the Roman Empire had a vision and converted to Christianity, and made it the state religion of the Roman Empire no less, about a hundred years before it's fall. Relentless attacks by the Huns eroded the boundaries of the empire the same way the tide wipes out your beach front property, and you end up with a house on stilts. Like the Roman Empire, eventually the tide washes out the stilts and your house crashes into the sea.

Now with the roman empire gone, there was a full blown power vacuum in Europe. With churches spread throughout the old Roman Empire, the church found itself in the perfect position to fill that vacuum, if only they had a coherent and consistent law to rule by, [Just like the Romans before them]. They wanted this very much because before Constantine, they themselves were persecuted for refusing to tolerate other religions. They could have co-existed peacefully in the ancient world by keeping a low profile, but they chose to practice an "in your face" kind of religion. This could well have been a backlash to the sacking of Jerusalem by the Romans. The Christians condemned everyone who was not one of them, [and still do], militantly.

Sadly many televangelists perpetuate this "God is on our side - That makes us better than you" attitude towards others. That and "God wants ME to have All your money!, Can I get an Amen?" It doesn't seem to matter if any of the other religions teach the same lessons. Just because they don't preface it with "Jesus said", these lessons are seen as invalid. Discounted on syntax alone.

Now all the cards fell to the Christians. There were hundreds of books to choose from for them to create their New Testament. There was no one to question what they chose, so they chose those books that demanded that the individual surrender all their rights to the will of Rome [The Vatican, - The Revived Roman Empire], or that they would risk eternal damnation. Well, actually it was at first that they wouldn't re-incarnate, then it was that they would burn in hell. But that caused people to not even bother to try the path they offered, so the church invented purgatory. This let you work off your damnation in the afterlife, as well as shortening the sentences in purgatory for those who gave big cash to the church and did them favors. But then came the reformation, and it's ideas about communing with god in the present moment, and brought us back to the burning in hell threat.

And that's where we are today. The Christians claim to have a monopoly on god. How do they prove this to their followers? They point to the spiritual experience I spoke of earlier. Their terms are "Living in the Spirit, or, Being filled with the spirit". The thing is, according to Christian dogma, the only way that you can "feel" this "Experience" is through Jesus. This is how the church holds a totalitarian control on it's parishioners.

By telling those in the pews that this is the only way to experience this sensation, it keeps the people from exploring other religious traditions. This serves two purposes. First, it keeps people in their seat. Once people have experienced this spiritual sensation, they think that they have found the one and only truth. And second, by spoon feeding this sensation to the masses, they will remain dependent on the source, never learning that they are every bit as competent as the "authority" to manifest the love of god.

It is written: "No one can say Jesus is lord except by the holy spirit". If Jesus died to forgive all sin, then it is a non-issue anymore. If sin is an issue for you, then pray: "Thank You Jesus for forgiving me, as I forgive others" and move on with your life. Guilt and sin only work because they keep the individual caught in a catch 22, where anything done wrong in the past keeps the individual from experiencing the presence of god in the present moment. Forgiving others (earns/creates) forgiveness for the self. The purpose of guilt by sin is to create an overwhelming burden which the individual can no longer carry. When the individual releases this load to god, god then enters the individuals consciousness. When this burden is confessed to a man however, or laid on the shoulders of a go between, the direct communion with god is bypassed, and a dependency is created.

This puts the individual at the mercy of the church, [which is exactly where the church wants them]. Once the individual believes that the church is the only way that they can experience god, they will do whatever the church tells them to, in an attempt to find communion. The fact that god can be communed with without the church is never explained to them. [Why should it be]?

As an example; the first commandment of Judaism is... "I am the lord thy god, you shall have no other god before me", whereas the Muslims say "There is no god but god [Allah] and Mohammed is his prophet". They both say exactly the same thing [Moses is his prophet is implied in the Jewish version]. Jesus is his son would be the Christian twist. And yet none of these three religions seems to get the message about how to commune with god in the present moment.

Actually I take that back. The evangelical branch of Christianity does practice a form of communion, however they label one facet of god as Jesus and insist that any other label is a demonically inspired form of Satan worship. [This tends to keep the parishioners from exploring other faiths, and keeps the authorities in power].

Is Ghandi burning in hell just because he was a Hindu? The Christians would say yes. Yet this man were probably more in touch with god than Pat Robertson is now. Look at what these people do for us, not what they ask you to do for god. Why does Sri Baba shower the rich and powerful with gold and jewels, while showering the poor with ashes? If he were truly a man of god, wouldn't he do it the other way around?

True children of god put what they can do to help others ahead of what they could do for themselves. This often costs them in recognition, promotion, cash, and the advantage they do not take at another's expense. What they gain is understanding, insight, self-esteem, and a sort of karmic surplus. The more they do it, the more that unpredictable "something" out of left field kicks in at just the right moment.

The whole point here is that no matter what spiritual path you choose, we are all trying to accomplish the same thing. Let's cut each other a little slack. I might not understand your symbols, rituals, or traditions, but that does not mean they are any less valid than my own. The bible calls both Noah and Job righteous men, yet neither of them prayed to Jesus. Just because people make different choices and understand god differently does not mean that god has not spoken to them, or will not speak to you.

The experience of communion is described by every religious tradition on one form or another. As a matter of fact, it is the one and only thing they all have in common. Nobody has yet found a way to explain it in words that everybody will understand. As a result, we find ourselves with many different ways of saying what is essentially the same thing.

Unfortunately, many people who understand what this experience is and where it comes from, keep this information to themselves. [It gives them a sense of power and superiority] Usually the convince themselves that the path they followed to achieve this experience is the only one which could possibly attain it. Then there are those who would like you to believe that they experience it, but instead only want your money and to have control over you. They dangle god's love out in front of you and say if you want it you should send them your money and vote like they tell you to.

Save your money and think for yourselves: Communion with god is free to anyone, no strings attached.

So what does it take? Nothing but a willingness to understand god.

Most people think of god as far off somewhere watching everything you do and keeping score. [Actually god is perceived to be far too important for such menial tasks, so angels do it for him.] This great book is to be opened at the end of time and used against you in a final judgement. They also think of god in the creator sense, and as a result, most people only think of god at the beginning and end of time, [past and future god].

Communion, as it is described by every religion, is the complete and total awareness of god in every thing the Individual does and experiences. Since every thing the Individual does and experiences is experienced as now, this awareness of god can only be perceived as happening now. Thus the past and future impressions of god must be replaced with a paradigm that includes god: first person, present tence. Not only that, the individual must find some way to keep god involved in every decision the individual ever makes from here on in.

Virtual chaos offers a very simple solution to this problem. Not only that, but this simple solution might also be the most basic form of the spiritual relativity we seek. While it does not do anything as far as translating one religion into another, it may well be a way of translating the one thing they have in common, the complete and total awareness of god in everything that the individual does and experiences.

What is this simple solution? It is a minor change in the way you think. Instead of using the pronoun "I", first person singular, substitute the pronoun "We", first person plural. [i.e. god & I].

Thinking first person plural has two benefits over thinking first person singular. First off it lets you share your thoughts with god without really trying very hard, and secondly, thinking in terms of we tends to make dealing with other people that much easier even if we don't fully understand them. When "We" seek god in the present moment, ego and pride become less of a trigger when dealing with others.

An enlightened Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, or Christian will recognize enlightenment in any of the others by the way they think, talk, and act. Each one of them would be more than willing to set aside theological argument to join forces with any of the others on larger projects which serve everyone for the common good. These people can look past the words and see a shared vision of what it really means.

We at virtual chaos don't care how you choose to visualize god, that's your decision and really none of our business. Our hope is that you just consider what god is doing right now. Is god just kicking back and keeping score? Or is god an active, vibrant part of your personal reality? It would appear that the choice is yours.

"We" thank you, [god & i]

chaos

I apologize if this piece sounded a bit harsh on organized Christianity, that was not my intent. To the best of my knowledge, all of this information is historically accurate. I have nothing against the teaching of Rabbi Ben Jacob, only the way it has been, and is being used, for power and profit.