कोई मन नहीं

uhmom-alan-schwartz

I’ve written before about how important it is to me that any idea of God that I entertain be as far from human-like as it can get. It’s been part of the pull I have for Ganesha versus others who appear more human. And while I understand that the majority of our believing population needs something minds can wrap around, I remain of the opinion that anything a mind can wrap around is immensely too limited to be very much of God. For this and other reasons, I’ve always used the Vedic words, “Neti, neti…” as a guiding light.

As humans, with minds and egos, the minute we begin saying what God is we naturally and automatically begin trying to build a circumference of sorts around what we think we know God to be. This happens in every religion to some degree or another. It can be said that for some religions it’s the entire foundation of belief.

In the Sahaj Marg, I think in part to engage in the stilling of our mind’s waves, we essentially limit ourselves in how we “see” God. There’s mention of divine light and “the subtlest of the subtle,” but beyond that we’re discouraged from clinging too closely at all to forms of the divine that are terribly finite and I have actually experienced this to be surprisingly liberating – which is, of course, the aim of the practice.

In reading the words of our current and living maharaj I came across words that resonated with me. I’m not sure if I’ve shared this exact quote of his before, but like a few others, I’m sure there will be many who disagree. (Interestingly, in this day and age of Kali, I’m increasingly convinced that almost anything different from the bulk of humanity is a fine thing, indeed. We’re a fairly fucked-up group of organisms.) The words I just referenced are shared below.

“God – no mind, no heart – cannot love human beings, and cannot love anything else. He is love, but he cannot love. We, on the other end of the spectrum – we can love, but we are not love. Therefore comes this, you know, blindingly illuminating concept that we have not to love, but to become Love.”

I think for practical and linguistic purposes employed in basic human existence, we can say that God loves everyone. And certainly if we do say God loves everyone then it should be made clear that God loves everyone equally. However, I genuinely believe that God loves no one. I also genuinely believe that God has no mind and no heart, as the quote indicates. We humans have hearts and minds and we definitely think and love. But God IS love, right? If God is love, then God cannot love. Otherwise, we could say that a fire “fires,” which doesn’t make sense. Instead, we say that a fire burns or heats or warms. So either God loves but isn’t love, or God is love but doesn’t love. Most agree that humans are not love, yet are capable of loving intensely. I believe God is love and I believe humans become That by loving. It’s a simple and very deep sadhana.

Aum Shri Mahaganeshaya Namaha
Aum Shanti

Advertisements

4 responses to “कोई मन नहीं

  1. Just curious what your thoughts are. Kind of a pataphysical question but if fire does not fire (fire burns), then what does God, BEING Love, do, if God does not love?

    Like

    • I think the shortest answer is that God simply IS. God IS love. That’s all. I think it’s this cosmic “isness” of God that allows God to simultaneously be the Doer mentioned in the Gita – which is certainly not the same doership we exhibit when we take actions.

      God just IS. Anything less than pure, cosmic, Sat-Chit-Ananda is too limited.

      Like

  2. Also, given that as we know God does not have “emotions” what is your take on the story of Shiva’s wife Sati committing suicide and Shiva’s subsequent mourning all throughout India, carrying Sati’s body with him?

    Like

    • Stories like the one you mention I think are absolutely not to be taken literally. The Truths they contain are a different matter, but I don’t think we’re supposed to actually believe that Sati committed suicide or that Mahadev actually went everywhere mourning.

      Those kinds of stories, I think, are primarily to paint part of a picture that is actually much bigger and more vibrant than any color of paint or any canvass can ever contain. Taking those too literally is, automatically, too limiting insofar as our conceptions of the Divine are concerned.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s