See God        (face to face)

Although it would be a misnomer to call winter the “rainy season” in Santa Barbara, it wasn’t surprising to hear a few heavy drops from a passing cloud strike the cabin's roof. This afternoon seemed to bring the promise of something more substantial. The north wind pushed an ominous wall of dark clouds over the mountains, and temperatures in the upper canyon quickly dropped into the forties. By nightfall I had to build a fire in the old wood stove, and once again I built it too large. The heat forced an escape to the porch where it was dark, windy and cold, and a welcome relief from the oppressive stove. After I had been sitting out there for a few minutes, the wind began to die down and then everything became unusually quiet. There was a puff like movement of air, and it began to rain. Within minutes it became clear that this wasn’t a passing shower. Heavy drops were falling by the hundreds, and then by the tens of thousands. It quickly grew into a very hard rain and then into a deafening downburst. After several minutes the deluge lessened and the wind once again howled. I was wildly excited by this tempest. It was too dark to see the trees as they rocked and shook in the wind, but I could hear them in the raucous tumult of the storm. Then another downburst inundated the canyon and then more wind. When the fury finally subsided and settled into a steady night rain, I went back into the cabin and lit a second lamp so I could write in my journal. I was once again speaking to the group in Santa Barbara. The subject was “What Is Truly Real?” I wrote down key words and phrases that might guide the investigation of this question, and then put out the lamps and went to bed where I listened to the steady patter until I fell asleep.

The next morning, the sound of a roaring wind gradually woke me. I stepped out on the porch to see what was happening, and realized the wind wasn’t blowing at all. The little stream, waterfalls, and pond in front of the cabin had turned into a writhing monster. I was dumbstruck by swirling, exploding currents raging only feet from the porch. What had been a little creek in a deep and rocky wash was now a thirty-foot wide, black diamond kayak run. The canyon had channeled the night’s rain into one of the most powerful things I had ever seen, and I was trapped. I stood there, mouth agape, dumbfounded. I studied it carefully unable to see how I could cross. I considered and dismissed a variety of strategies for getting to the far side where the car was parked. After an hour of walking upstream and down, I was still unable to devise a suitable plan for a bridge, rope swing, or tethered wade into the boiling current. So, I sat down on the porch and simply enjoyed the spectacle, resigned to the fact that I might not be able to show up for the talk.

As I studied the coursing arcs and waves, the spray and weaving channels, it occurred to me that I might be able to experiment with my vision and get the entire phenomenon in focus at once, just as I had learned to do with the waterfalls. After a few moments of adjusting I began to see it all as a single entity and it was breathtaking. I noticed that there was still some blurring in particularly fast moving parts of the current and began focusing on them. I found that if I followed a patch of fast moving water for a few feet I could bring it into focus before it flowed out of sight. Then I would move my eyes back upstream and follow another patch for a few feet. As I repeated this synchronization over and over, I began to bring this small section of stream into a continuous focus without the repetitive movement of my eyes. It seemed that my brain was speeding up the processing of this visual information so that instead of the normal blurring that would be experienced when a fast moving object passes before our eyes, I was seeing it in perfectly clear detail as though it was moving in slow motion. After a couple of hours of experimenting with this watery serpent I went into the cabin, made lunch, and began writing. Around four-a-clock I took a break and went out on the porch. I was slightly disappointed to see that the creek was starting to look like a creek again. It was still five times its usual size, but there were plenty of boulders and large rocks protruding, and I would easily be able to cross.

                _______

When I walked up to the hall, a few people who were chatting out in front recognized me and walked over to say hello.

“Michael, welcome back. I’m Tom, this is Milena, and this is my friend Patrick who wanted to hear you after I told him how much I enjoyed your last talk. Patrick is a writer, and a great doubter of all things unseen.”

I recognized both Tom and Milena from the first talk, and they both laughed at the description of Patrick. Patrick half smiled and raised one eyebrow tipping his head slightly. But as he did so he also focused intently on my eyes with a scrutiny that didn't match the pleasantries.

“Oh Michael, you made it. I was worried after yesterday’s rain. I remembered Ben would occasionally get stranded out at his cabin-your cabin-when it rained hard.”

I turned and saw Margaret who gave me a quick hug and took me by the arm, escorting me into the hall.

“Sorry to interrupt,” she whispered, “but Tom and Milena will talk your legs off and if Patrick gets a chance he’ll start an all-night interrogation of you. Anyway it is nearly time to start. I am so glad you are here again,” she said warmly as we entered the little hall.

Margaret moved to the podium while I stood a few feet away.

“Good evening everyone and welcome. For those of you who were here last month and were able to hear tonight’s speaker, it will come as no surprise when I tell you everyone who I spoke with was deeply moved by the insights and eloquence of the talk. I see many of you brought friends or guests tonight, and I would like to welcome all of you. We are quite simply people from a wide variety of disciplines, backgrounds, and philosophies who come together regularly to listen to thoughtful speakers on matters of the heart, mind, and spirit. If this sounds like something you might enjoy, there are schedules for the next month on the table near the door, and you are welcome to take one.

Now, tonight’s speaker is Michael Getty. Michael was the student of Ben Lochner, who was a well known and deeply respected voice in our community for many years. When Michael agreed to speak in Ben’s place last month, we had no idea what we might hear. We hoped it might be something that would have the flavor of Ben’s lovely talks on spirituality and truth. It didn’t. Last month, we heard a new voice with new insights, new ideas, and new guidance in the questions that are as old as human intelligence.” she stopped, looked over at me and smiled, “I am quite pleased to once again introduce Michael Getty.”

There was brief, polite clapping. I was surprised by the accolades, and I felt a bit unbalanced by them. I stepped to the podium and looked down for a long moment, allowing my focus to return. Then I began.

“Tonight, we are going to explore the question “What is truly real?”. I think we should start by first examining ourselves, we who will be attempting to ascertain an answer. We know that we see but a tiny sliver of the light spectrum; we hear only a fraction of the sounds we know are present; and we smell and taste an infinitesimally small portion of the molecules to which we are exposed. Because of this, it is appropriate to note that we may not possess the ability to fully experience what is truly real. Although technology extends the reach of our senses, it does little to expand our day to day experiencing of our surroundings. And even if we were able to use all of our technology, the question remains what lies beyond that? In any event, it is clear that we are not well equipped to perceive more than a fraction of whatever it is that is truly real. So our first challenge is in choosing an approach to this question that is not dependent on an ability to perceive all that is present.

Let’s continue this consideration by examining how we process the things that we do experience. One of our primary indices and chief tools of measurement and analysis is time. Time is the comparative and measurable difference between what was and what is. The apparent movement of the sun through our sky, the passing seasons, the counting of a clock, the vibrations of a crystal or decay of radioactivity are some examples of this. Change is obvious; the fact that we can view it as incremental, regular, and predictable and use it to record the passage of time, does not make time real. It simply reflects our ability to imagine, organize, and remember our experiences. At the heart of this thing we call “time” is the belief that there are real numbers other than one. We can immediately see that “one” does exist, as in this one universe and this one eternal moment. But if there is only one, if we do not exist in a cosmic ocean filled with innumerable parts, if indeed this universe is indivisible and our way of seeing it creates the illusion of separateness, then there is no way to measure, record, or predict true time because there is nothing that we can in truth measure against. If there is only this one, unfragmented universe, then there really is no time. I know this might sound odd, but without a reference point, change cannot be measured, and time does not exist. So we have to ask does dividing the universe into an infinite number of parts help us discover what is truly real? Or does it simply create a highly sophisticated set of tools that help us organize our activities and understandings.”

I saw quite a few puzzled faces in the audience, so I decided to take another pass at this. I knew it would be a stretch for some.

“One” is truly real. Two and all the other numbers that we imagine, may well be nothing more than ideas about one. For example, two is simply the idea of one repeated, and so on. If this is true, that there really is only one, then all of our perceptions, all of our mathematics, and all of our ideas about time can be viewed as efforts to separately understand a universe of inseparable elements. Our method for dividing up the universe is the process of creating and remembering identifications. When we give something a distinct identity, when we learn to recognize it and name it, it seems that we have separated it from the rest of the universe. This is an illusion. Nothing is ever separate from the rest of the universe. Nothing is ever apart from this oneness. But in order for us to consider and compare things, we need to view them as separate and distinct. It may be that one of our great tools of analysis, time, is in fact an illusion we create using predictable change and invented identities. It may be that our idea of time is actually a reflection of how we have learned and been taught to see and organize our experiencing of the universe; the fact that it offers great utility doesn’t make it truth.

Now there is one more component of our shared consciousness to be considered, and that is our idea of place. Location is another of our fundamental tools of analysis, and it is based on two ideas. The first which reflects what is clearly real is the idea of “here”. The second, which we are going to challenge, is the idea of “not here”. The universe is always here; it surrounds and contains us; it extends to the limits of our technological reach, and when we peer into the emptiness at the end or beginning of the universe we find even more of it. If the universe is truly here, and it is present wherever we look, then is there really such a thing as “not here”? Once again, to serve our needs and purposes we must separate that which is inseparable in order to make comparisons using the idea of location. And once again, how we experience what we see may be far more revealing about us than it is about the universe. It seems reasonable to say that wherever we have been and whatever we have experienced in our lives, it took place in a moment that we would have described as “now”, in a place we would have described as “here”. It is still here; it is still now. This cannot change. This is what is truly real. The rest is simply a collection of templates which serve our purposes. It seems clear that “now” is eternal and “here” is infinite, and this is what is truly real.”

I stopped talking, realizing that although I was experiencing a magnificent epiphany in this investigation, I had lost at least half the group along the way. I drank some water and circled back to see if I could regroup with them.

“It may be that what is true and real is incomprehensible, imperceptible, and of no practical value in human affairs. It may be that we have to skew reality through arbitrary identifications, imagined locations, and attributed temporal relationships, in order to make it intelligible and predictable. It may be that this rendering of our surroundings and experiences trumps what is true and real, because it offers great utility. It gives us some measure of dominion over matter, albeit at the expense of enlightenment.”

I continued to speak for another fifteen minutes or so, paraphrasing myself and searching for words that might connect with the entire audience. I could see that quite a few of them were now staying with me and reacting with facial expressions that suggested they understood what I was saying. However, there was still a significant number whose eyes were glazed, and I decided to take some questions to see if we could yet find the magic denominator.

Patrick was the first to raise a hand and I called on him.

“Science has been seeking what many have dubbed the “Holy Grail”, a unified theory which will explain the universe. Do you have any sense of whether or not such a discovery is a possibility and whether or not there might be some alternative insight into the nature of the universe?”

“These are incredibly interesting questions. Can science discover truth in symbols and formulas, or is this approach limited to what is valid but not truth? And can we discover truth without using symbols and the science of their relationships, which of course is mathematics in all its evolutions?”

Patrick smiled slightly and nodded his head in approval of my restatement of his questions.

"Maybe we should approach these questions in the same manner that we began tonight, by first looking at ourselves.”

I stepped around the podium so I was standing in full view of the group.

“There are two things about me that are relevant in this consideration. First, I am the universe, not figuratively or theoretically, but actually. Everything that combines to produce the form that is in front of you is the universe, in that it is a fractal, a self-similar facet. That which stands here is the universe in its constitution, just as every cup of sea water is the ocean. Every atom that forms this being in front of you is a scaled planetary system, and it has proportionally larger spaces between orbiting particles and nucleus than exist in our system of planets and sun. Every element found in this being was produced in the life and death of stars in this galaxy. And if we wish to consider the animation of matter, this being that stands here before you is an eco-system much like a coral reef, where thousands of distinct forms of life exist in symbiotic relationships that enable the continued existence of the entire community. In terms of understanding life itself and the planetary history of life, there is an unbroken chain of living tissue between the organism that stands here in front of you, and the very first living things on this planet. The second thing that is relevant, is that I am a version of you and everything that is true about me is equally true about you. We are each other, and we actually are the universe and all of life. Now, back to our questions. Will thought and the plethora of symbols and ideation that form its medium bring you closer to understanding what you--the universe--truly are? Will abstractions and formulas allow you to see the truth of yourself? After all, everything we hope to discover about the universe is something that will be equally true of us, since each of us and the universe are all one and the same. We are what we seek to understand, and we have a level of access to ourselves that is unsurpassed. We are the perfect laboratory in which to observe and discover the truth about this universe. Quite simply, we are the truth we seek. Not the idea of us; the fact of us. Perhaps we are taking the long way home when we look beyond our own being in our search for the truth.”

I walked back behind the podium. There was vacuous silence in the room. I took a drink of water, and looked out for another question.

A hand went up on the other side of the room and I pointed to the gentleman. He stood to speak.

“The stardust part of me, the physical body, is not what makes me the spiritual being I am, and it will all go on in other forms that I will have no knowledge of. This is true. I see this. But what is there of me beyond that body, and the invented identity of name and numbers? And how do I find it, and what's its purpose, or mission, or need?”

“Thank you, that is very well put. This seems quite clear. The elements that are incorporated into our physical form have undoubtedly been a part of innumerable forms that came into being and then came undone in all the past versions of this moment. I cannot tell you what will be left of you when this present moment changes billions of times more. I cannot say whether after being in this form you will then be the spark of awareness in a new and different form. As you have noted, the identity that makes it possible for us to function and be distinguishable among so many others is completely invented and has nothing to do with truth. In truth we are simply the awareness that resides in an organism and as such we have no true name or meaning. We are quite simply a fact and a facet of the universe, and the residence of our awareness in this body is at some level a choice and not the only one available. Where this awareness comes from, where it goes, and what relationship it has to others and the rest of the universe are the questions that guide the exploration of an awakened life. And perhaps there is something that meets and even exceeds the definitions of the word "God". The work of enlightenment is the elimination of those things that interfere with our discovery and awareness of this phenomenon."

I took a couple of more questions. A man asked about Yoga, a woman wanted to know about healing and the power of prayer, and another asked about unresolved issues from previous lives. As I spoke I carefully sidestepped speculations or authoritative pronouncements.

“If I might ask another question?”

I turned toward the other side of the room and saw Patrick standing with his arm raised and his finger pointing up.

“Of course, please.”

“I believe I heard you say that there is something that exceeds the definitions of the word “God“. How could something exceed that which by definition is the Greatest and Supreme? In the spirit of full disclosure, let me add that I am an atheist.”

“Let me see if I can be a little more clear about this. All of the definitions of the word “God” are ideas. There may be something that is far greater than any idea that could be posited in the human mind. There may be something that is greater than anything we are capable of imagining. I know it sounds suspicious when I say that, and I am not suggesting that anyone take my word for this, but rather that we think of this as a possibility that we must explore. Perhaps I can put it this way. If something is truly Supreme, it may be far beyond the reach of human imagination, belief, and dogma. It seems that it would be rather vain for us to presume there is nothing we cannot imagine or understand."

Patrick was still standing, and asked a follow-up question.

“It seems that you’re saying that God is beyond the reach of belief and dogma, does that mean that you don’t believe that the bible is the word of God, and does it also mean that God or this Supreme Thing is beyond the reach of any holy book, thereby eliminating all scriptures as pathways to God?”

Patrick asked his questions like a congressman interrogating a witness and he was clearly relishing his efforts to corner and trap me. It was obvious that he had engaged in this debate many times before, and for a moment I felt like a fly entangled in the filaments of a sticky web.

"Before I answer your question, and it is certainly an important one, would you tell me if when you use the word "God" you are referring to a phenomenon which actually exists in the universe, or rather do you mean a belief or concept that is held by religious or spiritually inclined people?"

Patrick tipped his head and sharpened his focus squinting as he looked at me and considered the question. I could see this was some sort of game of wits for him. I wondered if this had replaced a serious investigation earlier in his life; one that had failed to uncover anything.

"Well, absent any scientific evidence of the existence of such a phenomenon, I suppose I must neccesarily be referring to the idea or concept of God. But let me quickly add that I understand that the absence of proof is not proof of absence."

"Well said, sir. Now, let me see if I can give you an equally good answer. This symbol we are using, the word "God", probably has a different meaning for every person who uses it. The religious scriptures you mention in your question, all seem to provide some definition of this symbol, this word, in their texts. In fact, I imagine that those definitions are the very basis of each of the belief systems. I also imagine that there are substantial differences in those definitions both between different belief systems and even within each of them. It is not my purpose to discuss or challenge any particular set of beliefs, any religion, or anyone's ideas. Nor do I wish to discuss the meaning of the symbol "God" as used by others. Because we are using the same symbol, I understand your interest in applying my statements to these religions. I apologize for the confusion. I'm afraid my discussion is more akin to investigative observation than it is to religious or spiritual belief. When I use the word "God", I am referring to a factual phenomenon which may be substantially diffrent from all the concepts found in human thinking and ideology. That does not mean that there is no relationship or role that can be played by religion or spirituality in the discovery of this phenomenon. It simply means I wish to encourage the exploration of what is truly real in ways that omit all forms of identity and ideology."

"Well, that will certainly give us quite a bit to think about until our next meeting," Margaret had stood and moved to my side as I finished my answer. Patrick was clearly annoyed by the sudden curtailment of what was quickly becoming a private conversation in front of the group.

"Michael, I want to thank you for another remarkable and thought provoking talk. Thank you so much, and thank you to all our friends and guests for coming," she said leading the group in a brief round of applause which ended with people talking to each other, standing, and beginning to leave the room.

Question or comment : josephpagen@yahoo.com