An Assemblage of Separate Things: Part 3- Final Thoughts

"We then behold the Self wherever we look, and its image is the universe in its light and in its darkness, in its bodies and in its spaces. This is the new image of man, but it is an image. For there remains --- to use dualistic words --- "behind," "under," "encompassing," and "central" to it all the unthinkable IT, polarizing itself in the visible contrasts of waves and troughs, solids and spaces. But the odd thing is that this IT, however inconceivable , is no vapid abstraction: it is very simply and truly yourself."

The Book On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are by Alan Watts (pg. 155)

---

My first thought after finishing The Book was "I need to read that again". I can't pinpoint exactly what resonated with me, but I feel that something did. Resonating is different from believing, especially because the concepts brought up in this book goes beyond belief into the realm of understanding. Simply believing that we are IT does nothing for us since IT must be experienced firsthand. Once experienced , once you Know, as Ram Dass describes it in his book, Remember, Be Here Now, "to him who has had the experience no explanation is necessary, to him who has not, none is possible."

So where does that leave the reachers, seekers, explorers, thinkers, and everyone else drawn to the Unnameable? If God/Jesus/Allah/Brahman/Deus/Elohim/the Universe can be experienced why do we stop at simply having a relationship with the Divine? Would not a deep close relationship be one where we begin to lose track of our separateness like Adam and Eve described as "one flesh" in Genesis 2:24? Christians speak about having a relationship with Jesus Christ and even describe the closeness of that relationship with the Christ and the Church as one body, made up of many individuals (1 Corinthians 12:12-27). Yet when we think of our own body we can't pinpoint directly where the "I" resides (watch the cute animation from part 2), so what about the church? Where is the central "I" of the church? Most Christians would say it is Jesus, but that would be like my hand saying that my head is in control, the head being more important bearing the full identity of the body. I'm aware that Paul was probably writing about communal cohesion and interdependence but my point is if we, as Christians, were to have a connection so intimate with the Divine we had difficulty describing where the Divine ends and the mortal begins imagine the transformation within us! We would not feed, clothe, comfort others because "it is the Christian thing to do" but because they are a part of us, realizing the deep connection we share with all creation. It would be like my feet, hands, and mouth refusing to work because they think the stomach is lazy. Eventually we'll feel the pain of our unloving actions.

Do I believe this taboo of taboos, that I am God (i.e. The Universe)? No, and even if I did I would have completely misunderstood the concept. It's not that I'm opposed to it or I can't grasp the concept, it just seems that this taboo must be experienced. To paraphrase Watts, those that say they Know don't truly Know. It isn't ABOUT belief! It's about connection, experience, and that is the big hurdle which must be taken daily. I want to move beyond belief and faith to embrace the interdependence we share with all.

---

Update!
An edited and extended version of this post is up on my class blog, American Spirituality, where my classmates and I will be posting our thoughts on our class readings.

An Assemblage of Separate Things: Part 2- So What?

"If, then, after understanding, at least in theory, that the ego-trick is a hoax and that, beneath everything, 'I' and 'universe' are one, you ask, 'So what? What is the next step, the practical application?'-I will answer that the absolutely vital thing is to consolidate your understanding, to become capable of enjoyment, of living in the present, and of the discipline which this involves. Without this you have nothing to give- to the cause of peace or of racial integration, to starving Hindus and Chinese, or even to your closest friends. Without this, all social concerns will be muddlesome meddling, and all work for the future will be planned disaster."

The Book On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are, by Alan Watts. pg.115-116

---

Watts spends the first 2/3rds of the book attempting to illuminate the reader of the illusion of separateness before tackling the plan of putting theory into action. Yet as soon as he pops the question he basically states that there is nothing you can do. Well the you that is You, not the you that is I, the universe. There is nothing that you (your ego) can do because any action taken by the ego is in danger of falling into the vicious circle of one-upmanship.

"I am more pious than you."
"I am more loving and accepting than you."
"No, no, no my friend, I am more aware of the ego-trick than you."

Further down the pit we tumble as we pat ourselves on the back for donating blood or pointing out the follies of fundamentalists. And with each ego-inflating comment I make I spiral downward as I comment on the comment (did you catch that?), further and further reaffirming what Watts calls the ego-trick. So instead of asking So What?, it seems we are caught asking ourselves, So What Now?



By trying to escape the clutches of the Ego and embrace the eternal Now, we are digging ourselves deeper, struggling tightens the restraints of the trap. Have a headache yet? Watts gives a list of practices to help begin the journey of escaping the ego-trick but he cautions that we can not Will ourselves or take any actions (short or long-term) to experience the melting of wave into ocean, do not try to get rid of the ego-sensation. Instead of asking how to get there we should be asking ourselves why we want to get there. When the answer becomes self-knowledge that the ego is a fake and the line between observer and observed (which is also fake!) dissipates we find ourselves "not in a world but as a world which is neither compulsive nor capricious."

So which then is better: to be aware of the trap and struggle to free the ego (by understanding the struggle as an illusion) or to be unaware of it and struggle to save our ego from total annihilation? I don't ask the question because I'm struggling for an answer, if there is an answer to be found, I ask because I'm drawn to _____. That! That which we can not even begin to describe so we dance, sing, pray, write, paint, build, share, give, and love collectively in an attempt to describe to one another the experience of ____. "That is the Self. That is the real. That art thou."

---

Update!
An edited and extended version of this post is up on my class blog, American Spirituality, where my classmates and I will be posting our thoughts on our class readings.

An Assemblage of Separate Things: Part 1 - I Don't Know

"We feel that this world is indeed an assemblage of separate things that have somehow come together or, perhaps, fallen apart, and that we are each only one of them. We see them all alone-born alone, dying alone-maybe as bits and fragments of a universal whole, or expandable parts of a big machine."

The Book On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are, by Alan Watts. pg.35

When and where does this feeling of separation originate? Or is that the wrong question to ask. We may guess that it arose at the traumatic moment of birth when we are torn away from the comforting womb of our mothers, or even that our sense of separateness developed at a young age. Are we raised to believe we are separate by others who've also been taught the same thing by their parents? How then do we break the chain of illusion and embrace that lost connection of unity?

---

Growing up in the church one constantly hears about the urgent need to develop a long lasting and strong relationship with Jesus Christ. But we were also told that because of our sinful nature the Divine will always be transcendentally unreachable. Since we are unable to reach towards the eternal, the eternal must then reach down to us. Within Christianity, the bridge between the created and the creator manifested itself as Jesus Christ. It is then through the sacrificial act of Jesus that once again bridged the mortal and the Divine. For many, Christians are united in one body with the Divine. This is all well and good for Christians, but then, which expression of Christianity has it right, or worse, what about everyone else? If God and man alike are desperately trying to reconnect with each other would it not hinder the cause by having one exclusive path to reconnection?

On Thursday during my American Spirituality class we spoke and debated on the concept of "I" and how we regard our identity within an interconnected universe. One of our textbooks for the class happens to be The Book On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are by Alan Watts which I have found incredibly intriguing. Alan Watts makes clear that when he speaks of the "I" it is not the same as Freud's structural model of the psyche but how we individually define as "I" when we speak of ourselves. He begins chapter three with an intriguing question: "for what specific sensation do they (us) use the word 'I'?" This is something most of us don't usually give much thought to and simply reduce it to proper grammar ("I have a body" vs. "I am a body"). For example when we point to ourselves saying, in a sense, "this is the real me" we don't point to an ear, toe, or kidney. We tend to point towards our chest or head. Yet if we were to open up the human body we would not see anything that resembles a collective of various elements that make up our "I", just human tissue. Also, the "I" is in a constant state of flux, the "I" of today is completely different from the "I" of yesterday. To give a more personal example, there are those who've stated that I've changed and are clueless as to who "I am" solely based on my change of beliefs. I don't feel any different, nor does my inner-self feel any different since I started my present spiritual journey. But "I" have changed although I Feel the same, but what is it that I am actually feeling and is this feeling a separate element from my "I"?

Questions within questions! And down the rabbit hole my classmates and I went. I understood the concept and theory but what do we make of what it means? A few of my classmates spiraled into a defense of Christianity which brings up my initial musing on the separateness of the sacred and the non-sacred: why are we so bound to erect borders between God and man? Is it our high ideals and descriptions of God? Is it our horrid human nature? Do we need something Good (if one defines God as good) in our lives to balance out the Evil of humanity? What do we fear by questioning these boundaries? The best I can summarize my thoughts after Thursday's class is "I" don't know.

---

Update!
An edited and extended version of this post is up on my class blog, American Spirituality, where my classmates and I will be posting our thoughts on our class readings.