Readers might note that I am often sympathetic to whatever material I am covering, whether that be about UFO's, ESP or spirituality. How best to understand the point being made by the authors? If they are sincere and do not seem mentally ill, they all have a valid point, even if not the most valid. Sometimes, though, the contrasts in points of view are so sharply delineated that it is hard not to take a stand. As I near the end of Bourgeault's book, (The Holy Trinity...) a delineation has become very clear, and I find myself siding with Bourgeault.
It concerns a matter of utmost importance - the kind of thing one climbs to the highest mountains in the Himalayas to find out: "What Is the Meaning of Life?". In the cartoons, the cross-legged guru says, "Eat breakfast - it is your most important meal!" or something far more clever and ridiculous. "The meaning of life" has become such a cliche because we feel that the question is unanswerable, and yet, of course, people have attempted to answer it. After reading dozens if not hundreds of books on the topic, I have found that the authors seem to fall into two categories: the evolutionists and the perennialists. The former believe life is about reaching forward to something new; the perennialists, that it is about getting back to an original source. In this, evolutionists are the optimists and perennialists the pessimists. If we look to our own experience of the world, we find both as possibilities: in life, we grow from nothing, mature, then fade into nothing. Without a particular spiritual view, it is circular, leading only to experience and then the end of experience. In the world, we see that things are changing at an almost unimaginable pace; in evaluation, we can only guess whether the good outweighs the bad. The evolutionists would say "yes, look at my laptop!" while the perennialists would say "are you kidding? Just look at the mess!"
Bourgeault views creation as a moving and evolving thing, and leaves it no doubt that she is an optimist. She poses the two views in great clarity: the Eastern view (she calls this neo-Eastern, as there have been more optimistic interpretations) that life is circular and we have to return to the source; and the Western, that it is historic and moving towards a great point (and then beyond) - the New Millenium or, as she and de Chardin call it, the Omega point, where "0 and infinity come together." What, then, is new about her approach that I find so convincing?
Because it makes sense and seems to realistically give us the answer to "what is the meaning of life?" First, she runs through the gambit of proto-creation and creation itself, which includes depths of emotions often not associated with the creator god: anguish, desire, agitation, and frustration - all of which point to a god capable of our emotions on a cosmic scale, emotions that are essential for creation. She then shows why they are essential - to produce tension in dualism so that the Uncreated might realize itself.
Now, in the circular view, this is pictured as a sacred breathing, an inward and outward thrust from God. In the evolutionist view, it is rather a spiral - there is movement that tends to furl back on itself, but it does not go back to the beginning - rather, a spiral turns towards the beginning but winds up (literally) in a different spot. What makes Bourgeault so convincing is her explanation for the need (and inevitability) of movement towards something new in creation; and this is because the subtle qualities of the Infinite can be expressed in no other way. In creation, the fullness of God is not being rehashed, but rather expressed and made apparent - not just to us, but to God. And as a part of this, we ourselves are moving towards a more subtle realm, one that more fully represents the fullness of God. It can, as she has drawn in out, be no other way.
And while non-Christians may disagree, she sees the existence of Christ as a necessary and unique catalyst for this movement, for in this, the substance of the universe at large and the human being in particular are brought together for a leap into this more subtle realm. For just as Jesus rose from the dead into a more subtle body - that which could eat and speak and have his wounds felt, but which also could walk through walls, talk in all languages, and be beyond time-space, able to be anywhere at anytime, so are we evolving. Although I have not quite finished the book, she is making it clear that this is our destiny - a destiny which still will not be fulfilled in this, for God in all his aspects is eternal. We continue, then, and continue to evolve towards an infinite that is inexhaustible..
This latter part is certainly arguable, although as a Christian it makes perfect sense. But apart from that, it answers the question as to the meaning of life in a particularly poignant way: we do not exist to be shown a harsh lesson; rather we exist out of the will (and desire) of God to know - as only can be known from differentiation - all its aspects. We are not then a cruel experiment designed by a distant creator, but rather a share of God's need to understand - our anguish in being every much God's anguish. We are always one with the Unformed, and always, always at one with its power and glory. "The gate of heaven is everywhere," said Thomas Merton, and this is what he meant. We are not cast down into the dust like the snake, but an integral part of the great design - not as a morality play, but as a living expression of divinity.
As I write, I can already see the arguments of the perennialists - don't we eventually, through all time, reach the Omega- only to become part of the need to express the one again? Our author has said no, that this expression is everlasting, but we can see the fault lines arise. Still, Bourgeault answers our question as to the meaning of life - to express the nature of God. Not as a puppet, but as an individually creative force that is also one with God. He (It) goes with you everywhere and is ever present. You are not only never left alone from the source, but are essential to it. Every moment is a divine miracle, and you a part of its expression. Not a bad answer to "what is the meaning of life?" FK
It concerns a matter of utmost importance - the kind of thing one climbs to the highest mountains in the Himalayas to find out: "What Is the Meaning of Life?". In the cartoons, the cross-legged guru says, "Eat breakfast - it is your most important meal!" or something far more clever and ridiculous. "The meaning of life" has become such a cliche because we feel that the question is unanswerable, and yet, of course, people have attempted to answer it. After reading dozens if not hundreds of books on the topic, I have found that the authors seem to fall into two categories: the evolutionists and the perennialists. The former believe life is about reaching forward to something new; the perennialists, that it is about getting back to an original source. In this, evolutionists are the optimists and perennialists the pessimists. If we look to our own experience of the world, we find both as possibilities: in life, we grow from nothing, mature, then fade into nothing. Without a particular spiritual view, it is circular, leading only to experience and then the end of experience. In the world, we see that things are changing at an almost unimaginable pace; in evaluation, we can only guess whether the good outweighs the bad. The evolutionists would say "yes, look at my laptop!" while the perennialists would say "are you kidding? Just look at the mess!"
Bourgeault views creation as a moving and evolving thing, and leaves it no doubt that she is an optimist. She poses the two views in great clarity: the Eastern view (she calls this neo-Eastern, as there have been more optimistic interpretations) that life is circular and we have to return to the source; and the Western, that it is historic and moving towards a great point (and then beyond) - the New Millenium or, as she and de Chardin call it, the Omega point, where "0 and infinity come together." What, then, is new about her approach that I find so convincing?
Because it makes sense and seems to realistically give us the answer to "what is the meaning of life?" First, she runs through the gambit of proto-creation and creation itself, which includes depths of emotions often not associated with the creator god: anguish, desire, agitation, and frustration - all of which point to a god capable of our emotions on a cosmic scale, emotions that are essential for creation. She then shows why they are essential - to produce tension in dualism so that the Uncreated might realize itself.
Now, in the circular view, this is pictured as a sacred breathing, an inward and outward thrust from God. In the evolutionist view, it is rather a spiral - there is movement that tends to furl back on itself, but it does not go back to the beginning - rather, a spiral turns towards the beginning but winds up (literally) in a different spot. What makes Bourgeault so convincing is her explanation for the need (and inevitability) of movement towards something new in creation; and this is because the subtle qualities of the Infinite can be expressed in no other way. In creation, the fullness of God is not being rehashed, but rather expressed and made apparent - not just to us, but to God. And as a part of this, we ourselves are moving towards a more subtle realm, one that more fully represents the fullness of God. It can, as she has drawn in out, be no other way.
And while non-Christians may disagree, she sees the existence of Christ as a necessary and unique catalyst for this movement, for in this, the substance of the universe at large and the human being in particular are brought together for a leap into this more subtle realm. For just as Jesus rose from the dead into a more subtle body - that which could eat and speak and have his wounds felt, but which also could walk through walls, talk in all languages, and be beyond time-space, able to be anywhere at anytime, so are we evolving. Although I have not quite finished the book, she is making it clear that this is our destiny - a destiny which still will not be fulfilled in this, for God in all his aspects is eternal. We continue, then, and continue to evolve towards an infinite that is inexhaustible..
This latter part is certainly arguable, although as a Christian it makes perfect sense. But apart from that, it answers the question as to the meaning of life in a particularly poignant way: we do not exist to be shown a harsh lesson; rather we exist out of the will (and desire) of God to know - as only can be known from differentiation - all its aspects. We are not then a cruel experiment designed by a distant creator, but rather a share of God's need to understand - our anguish in being every much God's anguish. We are always one with the Unformed, and always, always at one with its power and glory. "The gate of heaven is everywhere," said Thomas Merton, and this is what he meant. We are not cast down into the dust like the snake, but an integral part of the great design - not as a morality play, but as a living expression of divinity.
As I write, I can already see the arguments of the perennialists - don't we eventually, through all time, reach the Omega- only to become part of the need to express the one again? Our author has said no, that this expression is everlasting, but we can see the fault lines arise. Still, Bourgeault answers our question as to the meaning of life - to express the nature of God. Not as a puppet, but as an individually creative force that is also one with God. He (It) goes with you everywhere and is ever present. You are not only never left alone from the source, but are essential to it. Every moment is a divine miracle, and you a part of its expression. Not a bad answer to "what is the meaning of life?" FK
RSS Feed