The Search: The Origin Of The Question To The Meaning Of Life. Disclaimer: I must point out that this note isn’t really intended for others to read. I don’t expect anyone to read it, as
it’s quite long and somewhat boring (however feel free to do so). It’s more of a gift to myself, and helps me reenforce the habit of writing down my thoughts. I must also state that whilst I’m obviously Christian, I have written this piece purely from the perspective of an outsider of the faith, an unbiased and neautral view; an agnostic view, if you will. I hope this may develop into a series of pieces that leads to an answer that many have searched for all their lives (if I persist in writing more). My reason for writing this is due to me finishing the book of Ecclesiastes (once again), a book I personally regard as the bleakest, most depressing book in the Bible. The true wisdom in this book is not the actual words he expresses (although they are quite a few), but what causes Solomon to write it. Essentially, what ponders at the heart of Solomon is the age old question of life; the meaning and purpose of life, the fundamental question at the heart of man. Man asks such a question because man intrinsically seeks purpose. But the issue of death hangs like a wielding axe over the proverbial head of everything known as purpose (with the ubiquitous presence of death ever-looming, it is no mystery why Solomon saw everything “under the sun” as “vanity”). Death doesn’t just bring the end of life, but the end to all purpose in life. Essentially, everything means nothing, as it flows into the abyss known as the grave (that is, if you subscribe to King Solomon’s view). Many, who call themselves intellectuals or more specifically, “rationalists”, propose that there is no meaning to life; like Solomon, everything is “vanity”. While some accept such a view, for the majority, it goes against a fundamental truth in their life....in their heart. It is a truth no one quite knows where it sources itself from, a question that fundamentally separates us from all animals. It is our sentience, our ability to place ourselves in this world (universe even), then to ask the question of “why am I here?” To paraphrase Chesterton, an animal concerns itself on a dayto-day basis on how to stay alive, whereas a man may spend his day questioning why he must stay alive. No amount of rational thinking eradicates of this eternal question that everyone has asked themselves. Several reject this question as irrational and therefore not real (I will discuss what is real at some point in the future), refuting it and embracing King’s Sol’s vanity. They accept life as bleak and void of meaning. But just because one suppresses and rejects the question, does not mean the question ceases to exist in their mind, but rather it lies dormant, somewhere in their subconscious. On a daily basis, in a perpetual daily cycle of the sun, the questions may not enter into the forefront of their mind, but it remains. It presents itself on particular incidents and circumstances, in situations that break that monotony of perpetual life; at a funeral of a loved one or friend, at the birth of a child, at the final tender days of age where death looms, or when we ourselves face the clutches of death (near death experiences). It is in these instances, that the question resumes its position in the forefront of the conscious, that searching question of what is. The search begins once more. But though many may ponder on the question of “what is”, few ponder the reason why we ask the very question in the first place. If we are evolved animals, than what evolutionary point is there in asking such a question in the first place? How can it be evolutionary when the very fundamental ability to ask the question is what separates us man from beast in the first place? Yet the question of the meaning of life is not the actual mystery in itself, it is merely the symptom of the true mystery that makes us ask the question. That mystery is that esoteric sensation that has been felt since man first looked to the sky; that inexplicable sentiment that cannot be fully described with words, yet the closest word to it is the feeling of “incompletion”. This sensation, difficult to comprehend, even more so to describe, yet has been felt by all at some point, is the source of the question.
This feeling of incompletion may be behind consumerism (although greed plays a strong factor). It is the reason behind life’s disappointment (as many believe either materialism, or having a spouse and children, or liberation from work will quench the thirst). A man will skip and pin-point one issue in his life to the next, believing solving either the job or a new spouse will satisfy this vague quest for “happiness”. It is behind the many of ballads and love songs, where one sings for that other that will “complete them” (ironically enough, many of the song writers are in fact in relationships. Makes one wonder where the inspiration for such songs come from). Yet when man looks at the sky at night to see the awe of the beauty above (for those who do not live in London), that familiar yet distant sensation is magnified by the trepidation of the stars. What intrigues about this sensation when one looks above, is a peculiar pattern of thought that seems to have existed throughout the ages of man; that sense of something “not quite” that is yet somehow distinct from that other sensation of incompleteness. It is that odd sense of something being out there, or as Rudolf Otto puts it, something “Wholly Other” from us (note: it is interesting that man refers to this sensation as “something”, addressing it as a singular, rather than as a plural. It seems instinctively or otherwise, man addresses the possible source of the sensation as a singular).
Watching the Wright stuff on a Monday morning (don’t ask), the topic of aliens briefly came up. Now to be frank, I care little for such a topic either way (whether they exist or not makes little relevance to my life or faith), but I did find a comment by one of the panellist intriguing. In defence of the existence of aliens, she asked the question (to paraphrase) “Don’t you think there’s something (once again with the singular) out there? Something superior?” What interested me was not the comment of something being out there, but the default belief of whatever it may be is greater than us. Why do we always view whatever is external from our world is greater than us? Why are all extraterrestrials always more advanced and superior to us? Never are they the alien-equivalent to slack-jawed folks who rather than stealthily watching us, blunder brazenly into a sky-rise tower. Whatever this “wholly other” is, it seems somehow it is instinctively known to us as being greater than us even though one doesn’t quite know what (or should that be who) it is. It is after all, the connection to this “Unknown Other”, this singular mysterious entity, which as at the root of all religion is it not? Indeed, the word religion comes from the Latin religare (“re” means “back”, and “ligare” meaning to bind or unite), basically to go back to being bind, or to re-connect. To rebind or reconnect to what exactly? Surely before one can rebind to something, it must have been bound or been at one to whatever it was in the first place, then for that connection, that binding or unity, that covenant if you will, must have been broken. It seems that in that heart of mankind, is an instinctive yet mysterious urge to reconnect, to rebind itself to this
wholly other. A mystery upon a mystery, an enigma wrapped in a riddle, it seems our quest for purpose derives itself from an inexplicable yet innate sensation of incompleteness, which in turn is magnified from an even more inexplicable yet even more innate sensation of something wholly other, yet greater than us. Without doubt, some will disregard and suppress something whole-fully innate, whole-fully human, and thus wholefully natural feeling as mere mysticism. They will suppress it, where it will lay dormant in their subconscious, until it resurfaces itself once more at a critical point in time (as it always does). Of course there are the others who confront this sensation and question of life head on. Doing so only opens a Pandora’s Box of even more questions that needs answering. What is this “Wholly Other”? Is it active or passive? For what reasons are we disconnected from this other? For what reason do we, over the ages of history, yearn to reconnect to this other? Is this other a being? If so, what kind of being? It is at this point, that the real search truly begins...
The Search: Chapter 2- The Forgotten Reality. Disclaimer:This is the second part of what will become a series delving into the meaning of life, or specifically why
we ask such questions. As a series, each one will only make sense when the previous one has been read. Just as I noted before, I do not expect anyone to read this, so I make no apology for its length (which really isn't even that long anyways) or for certain words used. Mankind is at war. As he gazes into the stars, the yearning for the unknown; the Wholly Other consumes his heart, but not his mind. Why is that? Why does his mind rebuke his heart and chastises his soul? Binding it and ensnaring it to the parameters of a “reality” that it has placed? It is at this point of conflict that many fail. That search; that quest for the unknown other fails at the first and most significant obstacle it will ever face…the gate of the mind.
To whomever that is reading, I want to share with you something about myself. Though I have refrained from any 1st person perspective, I will make an exception for the next few paragraphs for the sake of the topic at hand. I want to tell you something about myself that may surprise many who know me. With all the scientific books that lay across my shelves, to all the theological, historical and even philosophical books that are sprawled underneath my bed…..a part of me hates them all. I guess I must vindicate myself. Although I am seen as a very rational and systematic man, part of me has always rejected such systematic and rational thinking for some inexplicable reason. Much to my own surprise, this discontent did not become obvious to me until I began university. With all its teachings on quantitative and systematic research
methods, a part of me always found it rather……..soulless (yes, even I noted the irony of me not fully accepting systematic and rational though-patterns, based on a word that describes a feeling that can only be seen as irrational and subjective). I guess one could say it was the rebellious artist within that disabled me from fully becoming the complete man of science I always wanted to be. One can only conclude that my disdain for science arose because in all its glory of numbers and objective analysis, I strangely felt less human, and more of some-sort of machine. I came to realize that I felt science (or at least the Greek philosophy behind science, and not science itself) had robbed me of a truth, a reality I rejected as I grew older. This reality I cannot fully describe, however, the finest way to describe this reality is to call it the “reality where art resides”. The reality itself is not art, but the world of art can surely be found in the realm. Those who are true artists would surely understand what I am unable to describe with words. It is the reality where one man may see a mountain and declare it a product of millions of years of tectonic movement, with a specific numerical dimensions and geographic descriptions. Whereas another may see that same mountain and yet see its majesty as it races upwards towards the heaven, and there the rays of the sun break through its valleys to emit a light like that of the stars. That man may not just see a mountain, but the image of something so much more profound. To him, it is much more than a mountain; it is an experience.
The fundamental issue with the philosophical background to science (its Greek philosophy, of which has shaped the identity of Western society) is its peculiar infatuation with what it claims as objectivity and most recently, quantification; as it believes what is objective is quantifiable, and what is quantifiable can be identified, and what can be identified can be controlled (see the recent trend in research methodology from qualitative analysis, to quantitative analysis). Though it is understandable (and even agreeable) that the truth is objective, one cannot conclude that all truths are instantly quantifiable. Also, one may be in err to believe that what isn’t quantifiable is therefore subjective, and holds no truth. The truth may in fact be there, it just is not quantifiable. To further elucidate my line of reasoning, I will express it by telling a story. There once was a man; a very wise and rational man, who decided to confront that eternal question that had
plagued him since birth and ached at his heart. Sitting on a bench at his nearest park with his daughter, an elderly lady with hair so silver it reflected the rays of the summer sun, and with skin like that of a well-worn leather jacket, sat beside him. “You look troubled.” She perceived from the man’s face. “I’m thinking.” He replied. “Thinking about what?” She interrogated. With a deep sigh and with a glance at the blue sky above, he quipped, “What is real in life? You know what I mean?” Sensing his honest question behind his witty retort, she gave him an old weary smile, and responded with her own question, “What is reality to begin with?” Perplexed by such an unexpected question, his years of rational thinking kicked in as if by instinct. “What is real? What is real is what is tangible”. He responded. “Oh, you mean what you can sense with your senses? What you can test and quantify?” she questioned. “Of course.” He said. “There’s a rational and reasonable explanation for all things.” “Oh well, just as long as you are happy.” She responded, with a sort of innocence one like him would deem as ignorance. She picked up her frail body from the bench, and with her walking stick in hand, assumed her journey back home “Before I leave, can I leave you with a question?” she asked. “Sure.” He said, “What is it?” “That is your daughter over there. Tell me, your love for her, is it real?” She questioned. Taken back by the question, the man took a few seconds to gather his thoughts. Why would she ask such a question in the first place? Of course it is, isn’t it? His mind pondered. How could it be real? Love is neither tangible, nor quantifiable or even measurable, yet in his heart he knows his love for her is real. As he watched her frolic amongst the other children in the summer field, his heart became even more troubled, and his mind restless. The rationalism in him would tell him that his love was nature’s way for protection; a simple mechanic of nature to preserve humanity and to maintain its existence against extinction. Yet still, his heart told him another, his heart told him he loved her. Even if the finest philosopher such as Plato or scientist such as Darwin himself were to arrive in the park right now and give him a sufficient biological hypothesis for why had such traits as to protect and nurture her, no man on earth could ever explain away the love he knew he had for her, for he loved her. “What is love?” He asked himself. It did not matter what name it is called. Call it love, call it agape, call it any name; a rose by any other name still smells as sweet. The name could be different, but the feeling still as familiar as before, he loved her with a love no language on this earth could express, no abstract rational thought could posses, control, measure and quantify. By all rational thought, this “love”, this subjective feeling cannot be real, yet paradoxically, it is as real as the decrepit bench he sat on…possibly even more so. How could his feeling of love could even be classified as subjective, when it can’t even be classified at all? The truth is this feeling, or feelings are true and real to all man, just inexpressible in its completeness. This is the war of the mind and of the two realities; the reality were rationality and abstract thoughts resides, and the reality were sensation and art resides.To the artist, this world is familiar to them as they reside in it. To the rationalist, acknowledgment of this world is as unfamiliar as finding a leprechaun in their back garden. Yet the irony in all of this is that they themselves dabble in this lost world, but just as a man rarely takes notice of the sky being blue, so too does a man takes for granted this reality. It is common knowledge, knowledge so common that it is quickly forgotten. But what use is of this world for our search for the “Other” some may ask. The answer is obvious, as to walk in this world requires one to understand that there is more to reality than numbers and abstract thought; that reality is more of a portrait than as a measurement, that sensations and experiences can be far more real than your wooden table, yet far less tangible than its wooden legs. The reality of rationalism is only one reality, and therefore not the complete reality of our world (our world being far than what we can feel, but what we can sense). Rationality has made man forget about this world and let it sink into the abyss that is the mind of mankind; like the lost city of Atlantis. This is not even a case for walking in faith, but to walk in a realm that is real to all of mankind.To summarize this entire piece; “ If one is to get closer to the numinous,
one must become less like a scientist or philosopher, and more like an artist or musician ”. That is not to say one must reject one reality over the other, far from it. If we are able to be calculative, abstract and systematic, than surely we were intended to do so for reasons being good, as all creation is good. However, man so much more than that, man has the ability to maintain two different realities in his mind, and man must use both if he is to seek and find the numinous.
The Search, Chapter 3: The Goodness & The Self-Portrait. The Absolution of Goodness & The Self-Portrait of Man Disclaimer:This is the third part of what will become a series delving into the meaning of life, or specifically why we
ask such questions. As a series, each one will only make sense when the previous one has been read. Just as I noted before, I do not expect anyone to read this, so I make no apology for its length (which really isn't even that long anyway) or for certain words used. Before I begin I must make an apology, for I am a thief. I have stolen the original meaning of the word “absolution” (a very catholic terminology) for use as the extension of the word “absolute”. My reason for doing so is purely based on my own opinion and definition better suits the word “absolution” than its own original meaning. Even so, one may still ask the question as to how such a title as “The Absolution of Goodness & The Self-Portrait of Man” relates to the inner-most search of the heart for that unknown yet Wholly Other? Even after we have come to accept that reality is greater and far more expansive (and more creative) than our corporeal and tangible world, and that mankind’s eternal haunt of its incompleteness will never be fulfilled until it knows who or what this Wholly Other is and what it wants from us. The great difficulty in identifying this Wholly Other is and what it wants from us is where many falter. How can one even begin to comprehend what this wholly other wants from us when one can barely acknowledge its existence? Many have taken the route of knowing the character and will of this Wholly Other in different ways; from the usual scientific means of testing and measurements, to more esoteric means such as meditation and other such mystic paths. It takes little effort to open a newspaper to see bad news as the headline. Mankind’s capacity for greatness is erred by its capacity for absolute destruction and evil. It is easy for many to see the state of the world, and then to ask the question “How can a God exist when there’s so much suffering in the world?” A fair question, one might presume, but the great irony in the question is that most who ask that question overlook the weight it carries in its classification of what is “good” and what is “bad”. Along with the longing for the Unknown Other, mankind also has the strange capacity to define what is good and bad, and even more strange, mankind has the tendency to want to become of the former; that being “Moral Universalism”.
Throughout the history of humankind, no matter what era or generation, no matter what colour or creed, no matter what nation or tribe, mankind seems to judge every action by a moral standard of which its origins are unknown. Although the history of man may be filled with such debauchery (see the current story on baby P), a thought rarely
evokes in the mind of many as to how we or anyone can deem any act as “evil” or “morally wrong”. What objective moral standard do we judge all actions to and where does it come from? Many neo-Darwinists and rationalists of today try to explain away this objective morality of mankind as some sort of evolutionary mechanism for preservation via natural selection; that mankind, somewhere somehow and at some point in time, in all locations, all races, all creeds, all tribes and all communities somehow managed to agree on some sort of moral code of conduct similar to that of the UNs Human Rights Law. Granted variances may exist in location; however there seems to be a core of moral ethics that constitutes the framework for all laws and social characteristics all over the world. Too easily do we try to rationalize every unique trait of mankind into oblivion, yet objective morality is one that cannot be easily smitten by the sword of rationality. The evolutionist may claim that mankind developed objective morality as a means of survival, to preserve mankind from its own self, but I’m afraid that, in the bluntest of words, that path of thinking just doesn’t cut it (pun-intended. Sword of rationality? Cut it?) For what reason would mankind develop the morality of theft for instances? Or to pick an even larger conundrum, for what reason would humanity evolve to evoke the “evolutionary morality” that sleeping with their neighbours spouse is morally wrong? Since evolution is all about survival, and it has been said on numerous occasions that mankind as animals, our objective is procreate and survive, surely it would make “evolutionary” sense for us to have developed no such moral stance against lying with out neighbour’s spouse? As for it being a use of to preserve mankind? We see over the history that many have willingly given up their lives to preserve this high-moral standard of “goodness”. If self-preservation is already an evolutionary instinct for survival, why then would any man override one evolutionary instinct for its own self-preservation to preserve another? What evolutionary reason can there be for a young man to willingly give up his own life and override his self-preservation instincts for the sake of love, to preserve the life of an elderly who is not too far away from death themselves? I’m reminded of an issue that happened not too long ago. Someone, upon seeing those “God ads” that now litter many London buses became horrified at the idea of such advertisements being on public buses. That person (and a group of others) decided to retaliate by buying bus ads telling people not to consider or entertain such frivolous thoughts, and to just concern themselves with “being a good person”. I guess those people never considered who objectively defines what good is? Clearly morality cannot be relative in the first place, otherwise what difference would there be between the morality of mother Theresa or Hitler? When one takes an outward step to look at mankind as whole, what we see is more than just a simple pattern, like that of a flock of birds that travels south to the winter, moving to-and-fro like any other species, but what we see is a picture; a picture of a race that has strived to attain an internal standard of morality that we intrinsically call “good” without even knowing where “good” came from. Is it wrong to conclude that this image that man portrays; that the picture of mankind is like that of an artist painting a self-portrait? The difference being that rather than the artist using his hands to paint the portrait, it is the paint itself, the brush itself and the canvas that is trying to paint the self-portrait of its artist………The Wholly Other? Maybe it is time to extend that description to "The Wholly Other Consciousness".
Chapter.4: The Forgotten God & The Origins of Religion. [Note: The 4th installment of the series entitled "The Search". Unlike the previous chapters, this one has been split into two, as even I must admit that this is too long of a note. I can just hope that you are not put off by its length, as all the previous writings have been written for this chapter. I must also point out that this is the full extension of a story I shared called "The Story of Man". Now we must look and delve into the very origins of "religion" (from ancient to now) to know what and why it exists in the first place, and its role in the search for the "Wholly Other"...] So here we are... The entire objective of this series of writings was to examine that search in the deepest heart of man (usually manifesting itself as a search for the meaning of life), the thirst for that unknown entity tentatively called the “Wholly Other”.
"Anaxagoras [says]...the universe was determined and directed by the power and purpose of an infinite intelligence."
"Xenophanes...considered the whole infinite universe of mind and matter together constituted the divine being." "Plato...holds God to be without a body, immaterial." "Antisthenes too,...[says] that although popular religion recognizes many Gods, there is only one God" "Zeno...takes the view that the divine power is to be found in a principle of reason which pervades the whole of nature." [Cicero, The Nature of the Gods, Book 1] "[There is] but one God, named either the Highest, or Adonai, or the Heavenly, or Sabaoth, or called by some other of those names" And, "It makes no difference whether the God who is over all things be called by the name of Zeus, which is current among the Greeks, or by that, for example, which is in use among the Indians or Egyptians." [Origin, Against Celsus, Book 1, Chapter 24] He calls Jupiter "the governor and creator of all things." [First Apology, 21] "For they either use the common name God-indefinitely, or with some such addition as that of the 'Maker of all things.' [Origin, Against Celsus, Book 1, Chapter 25] The Mystery of Atahocan... If I have done my job correctly, we should be at the most critical stage of the journey to the answer, the understanding of just who or what this “Other” is and what it wants from us (or even of us). This question is the most important question any man can ask if they want to conclude the search. Indeed, is that not why religion exists in the first place? With thousands of religions in existence, it is easy to see the difficulty and confusion it creates (with many concluding that they themselves can find the answer to the Wholly Other). But one can conclude that, we as mankind tend to look so much into the finer detail, that we miss the bigger picture; much like scrutinizing the smallest of discolouring or line, if only we could stand back to see the beauty of the picture in its entirety. Likewise, we must all take a step back. Rather than scrutinizing each variances of all religions, we need to take a step back in time, to a time when man was near its beginnings, to a time when even paganism was at its earliest form, a time when religion was at its infancy prior to becoming “morality and ethics touched with emotion” to when it was a raw emotion itself (or a grouping of them), an emotion that touched upon that strange and peculiar prereligion of mysticism. Although most do not fully know or understand how mankind first reacted to the awareness of the “Unknown Other”, it seems I may have to share a personal experience that may give insight as to how our forerunners may have “sensed” the Wholly Other. Though I have tried my best to withhold personal experiences from this journey, I will have to make an exception as this experience cannot be truly studied or deciphered as it lies at the heart of the search itself. My own “conscious-awareness” of the other came between the young ages of 7-8. Standing outside looking upon the clear skies of Africa in the darkest of nights, with the cosmos in all its glory, I could sense my soul in search of something, yet not quite knowing what it was. I became anxious as that of a child waiting at the door for their parent, my heart became heavy and I entered unknowingly into a state of awareness like nothing else I have felt before and never felt again for many years after. Even in my youth and innocence, I became aware of a presence that was paradoxically far yet close by. I am careful not to use words that may misrepresent what I was feeling, but I am confident that I know of no words that can dare to describe the state I was in. Within minutes, tears were running down my young cheeks, and I was requesting forgiveness, yet not even sure what for. What I did know was that this presence, this “wholly other” consciousness from mine, did not just feel greater than I, but felt of greater worth than my own very existence. I did not feel “dirty”, yet as a child I felt unworthy to even feel such an intense presence. The very presence itself instigated in me an intense sense of awe yet fear, wonder yet trepidation, familiar yet obscure and very very peculiar. As a child, it would have been very easy for me to claim that it was the white and bright full moon that caused this, or even the stars that littered the sky (indeed it is easy to see how our forerunners may have made the same mistake as I could have), and though the temptation was there to do so, to try and personify this presence,
even as a naïve child I was wise enough to know….to sense that these things was not the causation of the event (I had seen the wonders of the galaxy many times before without them inciting such an event before).
Praying to the Numen
I genuinely believe this encounter would not have been dissimilar from that of the experience of our forerunners, the initial state of awareness of the wholly other. This experience that can only be described as a peculiar mix of awe and dread multiplied ad infinitum (not descriptions and sensations such as “awe” and “dread” are mere “ideograms”; they are there to try to aid in the conceptualization of sensations that cannot be fully conceptualized) would most certainly have birthed “religion” in its most early form. Even tribal art (early or modern), may have tried to express the “numen” (a phrase I may have used before without explanation. It is Latin to mean the power and the presence the deity) in their art. When see paintings and wall drawings, we may conclude that the crude, monstrous and downright frightful images of their deity are just fanciful and possibly malevolence creations, but they very well may have just been trying to incite the initial fear and awe they felt when they first sensed the “Unknown Other”. With mankind unable to fully conceptualize the Other, mankind took it into its own hands to give an identity to what was unidentifiable, to “fully know” what could not be fully known, to fully understand what could never be fully understood. Some looked to the stars, with that odd sensation of “The Other”, along with the natural trepidation of the stars decided to mould the invisible image of God (there, I said it) into the visible mystery of the cosmos. Some claimed the moon was where the Numen dwelled, and then soon said the moon itself was the Numen, making it a deity. Others observed the sun, with its role in the cycle of agriculture and concluded that it was the source of the Numen. Some pinpointed stars and said it was the Numen, others claimed it was another star. Soon the cosmos took on a life of its own, with each star becoming gods. With the atypical sense of the numinous being close by, some began to seek him on earth. Some looked at the great abyss, with its vastness, depth and mystery akin to that of the numen, proclaim that Wholly Other resided beneath the sea. Some looked to the mountains and the heavens, with its imposing figure and with the clouds like that of a curtain concealing a secret, concluded that God resided at the highest of mounts and/or with the clouds. Some looked at the forest and said he resided there; others looked at the animals and said he resided there.
God in the forest?
Then of course, as expected, man decided to create God in his own image. A perverse few even, decided to spurn the search for the mystery of the Unknown Other, in preference of a sensation all the more stranger, darker and much more sinister. It seems mankind has always flirted with the powers of the dark and were more confident in it. Why else do we, as modern man, spurn any idea of a creator and source of all things, yet have a strange calling for
the mystics, astrologists, witch doctors and ghosts? Would anyone be surprised in this day and age to see or know a man that can confidently say “there is no God”, whilst reading his daily horoscopes? The Face in the Fables, the God behind the Gossip... Nevertheless, with so many thoughts as to who or what the “Holy Other” was, it did not take long for all beliefs to co-exist. Like that of gossip, few had the full story, instead preferring their own assumptions and stories. Much like gossip, few were interested in the truth; the search and the original story had long been forgotten, replaced by new stories more extravagant than the last. Perhaps I should recount a true story which may easily summarise all that I have said. Long time ago, a missionary was preaching to a very wild tribe of native Indian polytheists (they worshiped multiple, pagan gods) called Algonquin Indians who had told him all their polytheistic tales and fables, and in return he told them of the existence of the one good God, the creator of all things. Almost immediately there was a buzz of excitement amongst these usually emotionless tribal people, like that of someone sharing a secret, and they cried to each other in their native tongue “Atahocan...he speaks of Atahocan”, meaning “The Great Spirit”, the “Master of Life”, who resides in the place above all places. Atahocan, “The Great Spirit”, the “Great Mystery”, the one without a proper name like the other gods, the one whom they described as imperceptible and ethereal, but due to his apparent lack of personification, few (if any) myths existed about him. Over time, he was largely forgotten or never spoken of, though they would never forget of “Atahocan”.
Atahocan
To Be Continued...
Chapter 5: The Man Behind The Myths, The Myths Behind The Man... Chapter 4: http://www.facebook.com/notes.php?ref=sb#/note.php?note_id=46915782508&id=664058887&index=0 Chapter 3: http://www.facebook.com/notes.php?ref=sb#/note.php?note_id=39214757508&id=664058887&index=1 Chapter 2: http://www.facebook.com/notes.php?ref=sb#/note.php?note_id=32729522508&id=664058887&index=2 Chapter 1: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=31394912508&id=664058887&index=3 Fast-forward centuries and millennias, and those assumptions and gossip had become much more organised, much more developed, yet no closer to the truth. From the depths of Africa to the mystics of eastern Asia, all had changed. What had started as a search for the Numen, had now become something much more ordered; now with religious priests, unusual ceremonies, mythologies and now with the very bizarre ritual of animal sacrifice. Ironically, as bizarre as these things may seem to the modern man, these rituals held a truth to them that few were and are completely oblivious to; it seems
mankind was searching, but had not realized that the keys were always there to be seen. But before I can continue, I must pay homage to a certain group of race, whose importance to religious history is vital. In a world, a vast and rapid river of polytheism and paganism, one small group of Semitic people were willing to swim against the tide. In a world where every race and nation had their own god(s), one small group of monotheist were willing to go against the grain, to remember and uphold the “One above all” as not just their God, but as “THE Forgotten God”, the “Atahocan”, and the world’s God. In a world where every god had an image either cast in stones or statues, this group of Abrahamic people dared not make any image of “The Great Mystery”. And though even they could not live up to the moral standard dictated to them, and even though their history may be as chequered as that as any modern nation, one cannot forget their role in ensuring the “Forgotten God” would never be truly forgotten to the world. But just as it was so with other nations, so too did this nation have their own strange set of rituals, laws and functions, patterns that though may initially seem bizarre, indicate to something far, far more important than the world may realize.
Animal sacrifice.
Lets us take the priest to begin with. Ubiquitous to many current and ancient religions, their origins are still shrouded in mystery. From the most prominent religions and civilizations such as the Babylonians, to the most obscure and unknown people like that of the south American Aztecs, the priest were there. Without further speculation, one can at least acknowledge that one of the primary roles of the priest, was that one man would take it upon himself to lead the spiritual life of his people into conciliation (or would that be reconciliation?) with the Other (or with whichever deity had taken its place). But possibly the most important job of the priest was in that very strange religious ritual of “the sacrifice”. Though many men of greater knowledge than myself, whether it be philosophers or scientists, have spent many years discussing, debating and of course arguing the reasons as to why both ancient and modern religions may partake in animal sacrifice, few, if any know the reasons as to where its origins begins, and why it began in the first place. It once again seems that, at some unknown point in mankind’s history, man either intrinsically knew or even perhaps learnt that for mankind to “reconcile” or “rebind” (religion of Latin word religare, re: back, and ligare: to bind), it must involve some sort of process whereby a mediator, a loss of life must be made on the account of the people to allow them to re-connect to the Unknown Other. The mediator of course varied; from chicken, to sheep, from goat to cow, or in very rare cases...........a human life.
Early painting of a priest.
But there is one final trail that we must investigate, if we are to find the answer to the search of man, we must consider a very persistent myth and fable that may have more truth to itself that many realize. This persistent myth, may in-fact very well hold the key to the Unknown Other... It seems at some point or another in time, mankind held a hope, a belief, a promise even, or even possibly heard of "The Visiting One”; that the Creator would someday stop being a mystery and would become a bit more.....tangible, that “Whom that is not of this world” would become part of this world.....the “God Man”.
The story and mythology of the “God-Man, the one from God” differs, whether it be the ancient Egyptian mythology of Osiris, the “resurrected” god (a discussion for another day, perhaps), to the Phoenician god “melqart”, son if “El” (God).
Osiris
It can be like that of the supernatural birth of dionysus, son of Zeus (the high god of the Greeks, though it must be stressed that Zeus having s son was not a rare occurrence, given his promiscuity, a reflexion of the Greeks), to his far more famous “brother” Heracules (Hercules). It may even be of the Pagan, Babylonian Shepard-god Tammuz
Tammuz
with his annual life-death agricultural cycle, to the more mystifying QUETZALCOATL, the Aztec “lord of the star of dawn” said to be both man and god. It seems history and religious history (of what little we know of it) displays an innate religious intuition for the Man-God, the hero and saviour, the man and the god, the final hope of man. One may even state that this innate intuition still manifests itself in modern times, after all, we still harbour for John Connor, the saviour of mankind against the machines, or neo, the promised one that is also of one with the source of the matrix. It seems this story of the saviour still yearns in the heart of man. The one who is as much as he is God, he would someday “rebind” mankind to the now “Forgotten Unknown Other”. However, there is of course one more story that we cannot forget; the story of the child born in a small, forgotten middle-eastern town. A birth so insignificant that it was unknown to the villagers around them, to the inn owner even, yet was so significant that the stars foretold of his birth to the point where 3 magi followed a supernova in the sky to find the child.
The star of David a supernova?
A story that, in its essence so unoriginal that it paradoxically makes it unique, a story that sounds like the greatest fiction ever told yet is regarded as much as a fable as it is a fact. Sometimes, even the truth sounds stranger than fiction. I am of course talking about a man, a Nazarene, like that Dionysus of supernatural origins, yet his actual birth was as natural as that of any one of us. A man, like that of Malqart, is known as the “Son of God”. A man with a role to that of all historical and religious priests; his goal was to “religare” mankind to God. A man, like all ancient sacrifices, was born to be a sacrifice.....the “God-Man”, the “Man-God”. As strange as it may sound, one cannot deny that mankind has been on a search throughout its history. As bizarre as it may seem, it seems the world was seeking this Nazarene. And as odd as it may be, it seems the entire history of religion spoke of this man. When we look at religion as a whole, what we see is akin to a jigsaw puzzle, with pieces spread and held by different populations of man and with each nation and its people holding a piece of the picture, yet never having the full picture itself. Now we can see that the picture was of the forgotten God who would one day, as man expected and hoped, would become the man that mankind had sought after for thousands of years, the reconciler that would finally complete and finish “religion”. Now we can truly understand and appreciate how this man, the “Christos” made such a swift impact in such a short amount of time, because he held the answer to the Wholly Other.....because he IS the Wholly Other. Even his language spoke to the heart. For ages, mankind kept God strictly as “other”, that far away being that we worshipped at a distance, though our hearts yearned for him to be closer and more intimate. We kept God as a deity, though we wanted him to be more than “just God”. And in his words, he called him “Father”, not just his Father, but our Father too......through Christ, he was no longer just “The Wholly Other” or the “Numen”, but he became our Father once more.
The Son.
It seemed mankind was indeed searching for something...it was searching for its Creator; it was searching for its Father. At last, it had found Him.