Haiku God revised

Description of God
Different belief systems
Sure causes trouble

For those who believe in the existence of God, there is almost total agreement as to the general definition and characteristics: all-powerful, all-knowing, omnipresent – in short, unlimited. Most would also agree with: all-compassionate/merciful, love, the one, that which is, creator, mysterious and inscrutable, beyond words. But when it comes down to details, there is much disagreement. People who have had an experience of God (such as prophets) try to explain that experience to others, so words and concepts appear, colored by the culture of the supposed seer, and belief systems are born. And because human nature impels us to believe in only one “truth,” belief systems other than one's own are rejected as false. From this, strife is born.

Certainly a lot of religious strife can be found in the Middle East, the home of three God-based religions. The oldest, Judaism, is the foundation of the other two. It instigated the ideas of one God, a chosen people and one true religion. The next, Christianity, believes it is the fulfillment of Judaism (Christ being the Messiah), thus supersedes Judaism and therefore becomes the only true religion, while at the same time still believing in the Old Testament as the word of God. Finally, Mohammad comes along and claims that the God of Judaism and Christianity gave him some new info that supersedes the Old and New Testaments and thus the Koran is the last word, ergo Islam becomes the only true religion. Of course to an objective outsider, all three believe in essentially the same God, but limit that God and their belief system in attempting to describe the indescribable, using a limited cultural world view, falling short. All three are religions of words – the Torah, the Bible and the Koran. Words and concepts cannot convey the Truth, so all three, while pointing to the truth, miss the mark.

What is the mark? A paradigm of a knowable God which all can believe in, that demonstrates the essential sameness of all belief systems as well as science. In order to be compatible with science, the first requirement of such a paradigm is that it be logical.


The logicians' God
Using four syllogisms
Can explain Itself

Science is all about the study of matter and energy, all that we can see and touch. Science deals with observable phenomena and draws conclusions based on experimentation and logic. Its goal is to be objective.

Religion is about spirit. God is usually considered spirit. Spirit, or awareness, is non-material, neither observable nor measurable, though its existence is obvious to the one who is aware, the observer. As a result, religions are based on beliefs in what some people say they have experienced and observed. It is completely subjective.

A realistic paradigm of God should be as objective as possible. The goal is a logical connection between matter/energy on the one hand (science) and spirit on the other (religion). To be able to make this connection, a fundamental question has to be answered: Are matter/energy and spirit separate spheres of reality, two different aspects of the same reality, or are they in fact the same reality?


All is energy
God should be all powerful
Must be energy

“All is energy” means that the known universe is simply energy. So far, science is aware of 3 kinds or forms of energy. The first kind is expansive, radiant (as in radiation), positive and active energy, of which there are two types: electromagnetic energy (E) and the weak force (nuclear decay). Certainly the type which is most apparent to us is E. The sun, any kind of fire, even the heat of our own bodies are all E. E is produced by chemical reactions of matter. The energy carriers for E are the elementary particles named bosons, the most familiar being photons. Photons are present in radio waves, microwaves, infrared (heat), visible light, ultraviolet, x and gamma rays. Active and expansive E is generally considered to be male energy.

The second form of energy is the opposite. It can be called contracting or attractive, non-radiant, negative or passive energy. There are three levels of attractive energy: the strong force, nuclear force and gravity. All matter has mass (Einstein's m) and consists of elementary particles called fermions, the most familiar being electrons and quarks. The basis of all matter is three quarks held together by the strong force to form neutrons and protons. In turn, the nuclear force holds neutrons and protons together to form atoms and molecules. Gravity then holds the atoms, molecules and larger agglomerations of matter together to form the universe as we experience it. Matter (m) is generally considered to be female energy, when considered to be energy at all.

An interesting fact is that bosons (E) and fermions (m) are exactly the same bits of energy. The only difference is their spin: bosons have an energetic spin of 1, fermions a rather laid back ½. The higher spin for bosons (photons - light) somehow allows them to be indiscreet, so they can be in the same place at the same time. They are thus immaterial (not matter, as photons have 0 mass). On the other hand, fermions (quarks - the basis of matter) are discrete, thus cannot be in the same place at the same time. That's why matter seems to be “solid.” Fermions as quarks also are interesting in that when bonded together to form protons and neutron, they continually exchange E (bosons in the form of gluons). So E is found in all matter.

This difference in spin of the force carriers of E and m forms a duality. E and m are opposites: active/passive, expansive/contractive, outward/inward, non-material/material, light/dark, positive/negative, male/female. On a particle level, this duality is always interacting, m reacting to create E (as in the sun, fire, human bodies), E morphing to m (such as in photosynthesis or solar panels). We could say the creator of m is E, and the creatress of E is m. And this creation is not a one time deal, it goes on eternally.

On the human scale, the interaction E → m = Life. In human terms, when E (energy, the sperm) and matter (egg) unite, life becomes: matter animated by electromagnetic energy. All life is matter animated by electromagnetic energy (light). Is it any wonder that life is so prevalent with all that light bouncing around?

The third kind of energy is dark energy. Also known as vacuum energy, dark energy is a mystery. The only evidence of its existence is its necessity in order to explain how the universe acts. It is formless and omnipresent, permeating the universe, present in all space. It can be called supernatural because it exists beyond the natural (E and m).

Part of the natural is E, the individual quanta of energy we know as light. Science says that this energy is a duality of particle and wave. We can imagine the particles (photons) zipping by at a certain frequency, thus forming the wave. So what is there when the particle isn't? We can say the wave is there, but the wave is just a description of the energy content of the particle. The only thing there can be dark energy, the field in which E plays. Thus it can be called the ground/medium of the waves of E and m. Another example is the ocean – the water is dark energy, waves are individual quanta of E.

The scientific view of the universe could be described as trinitarian: There are three energies, E (electromagnetic energy), m (the strong force) and d (dark energy). But it would be more accurate to view the universe as a duality existing in the ground of a unity. The unity is dark energy, the duality is E and m - bosons and fermions.
The rest of the syllogism states that God is all powerful, which follows from the definition of God as being unlimited. After all, who would ever want to believe in a limited god? (although a lot of people seem to!) To be all powerful, God must be energy – all energy. There can be no power without energy.
Dark energy fits the definition of God well. Both are formless and unobserved. Both are supernatural, transcendent and mysterious. And both are a unity.

The idea of God being E, electromagnetic energy, also fits well. After all, God appeared to Moses as electromagnetic energy (the burning bush). John's Epistle states unambiguously: “god is light” (E). Mystics of all religions (people who have supposedly directly experienced God) teach that It is light (among other things). E is non-material, just as spirit/awareness is, God being spirit. Buddhists preach enlightenment, knowing E. Humans are supposedly made in the image of God, and since life is electromagnetic energy, there should be no argument there! Finally, a lot of believers conceive of God as a he, not surprisingly, E being male energy.

What is not generally accepted by Western Religions is that God must also be matter (the strong force) to be unlimited. There is an historic separation between “God” and “his creation” as if they were two separate things, when really they are two aspects of the same thing - two different spins of the same particle of energy, the duality of E and m. “Creation” (matter) is usually not considered as being God, in fact, as inferior to God (which is very convenient for men). Lip service is given to the idea that God is immanent in creation, which is certainly logical if God is matter, but the three God based religions have institutionalized the concept of a separate God (as E).

The final argument is that if God is all bosons (E) It must also be all fermions, as the two are the exactly same energy (only at different spins). To be truly unlimited, God must be the strong force, thus must be matter.

Since energy is trinitarian, then God also must be trinitarian. The closest approximation of a trinity such as this in religion would be found in Taoism, where the divine ground (true God, dark energy) is the unity of Tao, and the duality emanating from the ground are Yin and Yang, the always interacting contractive/expansive, passive/active, female/male energies.

Another religious approximation of the trinity of energy as God is Christianity. The unified Ground of dark energy is the same as the unity of the Holy Spirit. E is the Father, the non-material, positive, active spirit. The Son represents the material aspect of God, but in an exclusive way (supposedly humans don't normally have divine nature). One would think that the manifestation of “God” on earth would be female, in keeping with the female nature of matter, but not so, because it is the male E which animates the body (matter).


God is all-knowing
One must be aware to know
Must be awareness

One of the general beliefs/assumptions about an unlimited God is that It must be omniscient, all knowing. To know, awareness is necessary. There can be no knowledge if there is no awareness. To know everything, God would have to be aware of everything, and thus, God would have to be awareness itself.
Awareness is hard to pin down. We (all living beings) are aware, yet what exactly is it that is aware? Is it I - ego? Or is it awareness itself? That which is aware. It seems to me that it is the I that is aware. My awareness is my identity, it's who I am. It's what sees, hears, knows, feels and experiences. It usually lives right behind my eyes and in between my ears, though it travels around my body, and when sleeping, who knows where it goes? (there can be no memory in the brain if there is no awareness there) But at the same time, when it is not caught up in the daily drama of being I, it can detach itself and passively observe what I am doing, which would indicate that it is a separate entity from I.

So we know we are aware. We assume that every other living being is aware also, just from the fact they react. Obviously each individual point of awareness has a unique point of view. What is in common is the awareness itself – my awareness itself is basically the same as yours, and every other living being – it's just what we are aware of that is different. Since God is awareness itself, each individual awareness is a separate point of view of God. I am who am means every who that am (that is awareness) is at essence God (as awareness itself).


Energy is God
God is also Awareness
Energy : aware

More exactly, awareness is energy. Awareness is spirit, spirit is thus energy. Proof? You are alive. You are matter animated by electromagnetic energy (E). You are awareness (spirit). When you die, both E and awareness check out at the same time (without paying the bill). How can they be separate?

To be energy, awareness would have to fit the trinitarian model of energy. Awareness as dark energy would have to be unobserved , mysterious, formless, omnipresent, transcendent, supernatural and unlimited. Sounds kind of like part of the definition of God. Dark energy/undifferentiated awareness is then the transcendent state of God. Though the names given by religions differ (Holy Spirit, Allah, Tao, Buddha Nature, Brahma, Void, Absolute Bliss…), the essence is the same. It is the state of heaven, nirvana, True God.

Awareness as dark energy would have to be supernatural, thus it couldn't be separated as individual I's. Since in this state is it not awareness as an I, it would have to be awareness as not-I; that is, awareness as a transcendent unity.

The not-I is the observer. Not I-Iness is just plain observation. But when individuated as an I, awareness gets caught up in the individual experience and identifies with it. The original state of detached observation becomes attached to the life/concept of I, and our divine nature is overlaid by individual nature.

Awareness as E is self-evident, since we are E. But to go deeper, if E is awareness, than every photon would have to be observant. Observant of what? Of being light? You tell me.


Awareness as m is hard to conceive of. One clue would be that fermions have half the spin of bosons, which might indicate that awareness as m is not quite as bright. And since quarks spend all their time in a tight bond with other quarks, there may well be awareness of bonding. But electrons? Who can say? But because we don't know is no reason to exclude the possibility.

The final argument for awareness being energy is that if energy is not awareness, we are saying that God, which is all energy, is not aware. Likewise, if awareness is not energy, then God, as awareness, is not energy.

One conclusion is that awareness, being energy, should then follow the laws of energy, one of which is the law of conservation of energy: energy can't be created nor destroyed, only change forms. So awareness then cannot be created or destroyed, but only change forms (from I to not-I). Thus spirit/awareness, must continue after death, in one form or another.

Another conclusion is that since energy is the subject of science, and awareness, or spirit, the subject of religion, both disciplines are about exactly the same thing.


God is known as love
All compassion and mercy
Love is energy

Love would also have to be awareness. Love, in the context of Haiku God, is defined as compassion, sacrifice (of I), attention, not-I, giving, attraction. It is non-judgmental, non-material, non-observable (except for effects), somewhat mysterious, and can only be experienced through awareness.
Love as dark energy (not-I) is obvious. Not-I is by definition love. But to know this, I would have to experience dark energy, or the state of not-I. It would seem impossible. However, I,ego, exists on a continuum, from complete self-centeredness to no self, or not-I. The less ego or I, the closer awareness is to not-I. Of course to experience complete not-I, my I would have to be completely dropped. Mystics (enlightened ones) of all religions who have supposedly experienced not-I and survived to tell about the experience universally report a transcendent knowledge of light, void, unity, love, bliss, and compassion, beyond human comprehension. They can't prove this experience to us, so we have to take it on faith. But it is strong circumstantial evidence that dark energy, the state of not-I, is love.

Love as the duality of E and m? This would entail two kinds of love. Love as E would have to be expansive outward love. Love as m would have to be attractive inward love. Our only insight concerning this comes from our own experience. If E is love, then we as E → m would have to be love. Certainly man is capable of expansive outward love (charity). And inward love would be love of self, egotism. Again, the continuum – from complete self-love symbolized by the devil, to complete dropping of I (no egotism, the state of not-I, perfect charity).

From a particle point of view, the only thing we can say is that E, light/photons are given freely to all, without judgment, without condition, as the giving of love should be. And when I feel those particles of light on my skin on a chilly day, I feel good, I feel like I am receiving love.

As far as m, imagine the three quarks of a proton bonded together, continually exchanging gluons (E). Sounds like eternal love making to me.

Although it cannot be objectively proven that love is energy/awareness, there is no evidence that love is not energy/awareness. However, subjectively it can be determined by experiencing not I.


Do not believe it!
Lose your I, become not-I
Then you will know it

In fact, don't believe anything, except that if you lose your I and experience not-I, you will know God. Belief (faith) is a way to the truth, it is not the truth. The human mind (separateness) cannot know not-I (unity) - it has to be directly experienced. Belief in what's in books will never lead to the experience of not-I – the only way is to subsume I. This idea is nothing new, it's been around since the beginning of man.

Many people in the West don't believe it is possible to have the experience of not-I, or divine nature (some people don't even believe man has divine nature, though if awareness is divine nature we have to have it). It's a convenient disbelief, for if we can't know God, why try? It's a lot easier on the ego! Whereas if we believed it possible, wouldn't we have some obligation to try, even if for our own sakes? The only difference between Buddha, Christ and all other enlightened beings and you and I is that they discovered not-I and then lived it. All found “the kingdom within.” Of course they were born into different religious traditions and cultures, so their preachings were different, but their experience was the same: not-Iness.

There are two ways to drop I. The outward (Western) way is that of service, or charity, loving others more than oneself. Outward love (selflessness) rather than inward love (selfishness). This success of this method is guaranteed – if you continually act as not-I, pretty soon you will be not-I.

The inward way is meditation/prayer, going inside to find our incipient divine nature; not-I, undifferentiated awareness. Where is it? Man (as a reflection of energy/awareness/God) is also a trinity. The heart is the seat of transcendent awareness/d). The brain is the seat of outward awareness/E, the gut of inward awareness/m. Not-I obviously can't be awareness in the head as I, ego. The gut doesn't qualify, as it is the source of our individual energy as well as appetites and desires. That leaves the heart as the location of not-I/love, which makes a certain amount of sense.

So how do we get our awareness in our heart (without resorting to a heart attack)? Logically, to realize unity, we would have to become detached from the duality of brain and gut, me and I (I and me?), and discover myself. In the case of the brain, this would mean disregarding all our thoughts, senses, ideas, beliefs and concepts and concentrating attention on something else. Shutting down the gut would be similar – though aware of desires, they are not clung to, as awareness is concentrated on something else.

This something else should obviously be something which shuts down I. The most popular object of concentration is the breath: constantly watching it go in and out, trying to find its origin. This makes sense as the breath is basically the alternating current of our life, between the E and the m, the I and the me, the head and the gut. After a while, the duality is balanced and our awareness detaches to the not-I state of pure observer.
For intellectual types, a favorite method is to continually ask an unanswerable question (obviously my favorite is “God is what?”). Eventually your brain (I) will short-circuit and you will get a non-intellectual answer, an experience of not-I. Adventurous people short circuit their I by placing themselves in great danger. Concentration is so centered there is no place for I.
There is a question as to whether the goal of achieving a state of not-Iness is even attainable, seeing that we are intrinsically I. And technically, it's not. However, as we are on a continuum of I/not-I, as we approach not-Iness, the thinner the film of I becomes. It's the process that's important, as the goal cannot be reached in life.


A challenge from Haiku God:

I am the not-i
masquerading as an i.
Can you see through me?

I'm in front of you
I am behind your own eyes.
Do not stop looking!

I am the Hearer
I am what is being heard.
Who is listening?

Everywhere, nowhere
I am closer than your face
Find Me if you dare!

Words

Words, words, words. When will I ever get beyond words? (and thoughts, beliefs, concepts, ideas, imaginings...) Most likely when I die. Til then, might as well refine Haiku God.

More words!

e

Attaining Heaven

God is known as love
Not-I is certainly love
I must be love too?!

Well, this seems counter-intuitive. It is obvious to me that I am not love; I don't do a lot for other people, don't think that much about other people, don't even pay much attention to other people, unless I want something from them. But logically, Haiku God is love, I am part of Haiku God, so I have to be love too. The only explanation I can think of is that I really am love, but my love is directed inward rather than outward - I love myself first, others after, if at all. Me first. It would follow that the stronger this love of I, the weaker is not-Iness, not-I being outward love. In fact, if we carry it to the extreme of inward love, we become the devil, the ultimate ego.

Conclusion? Simply that if I want to reach heaven (heaven being the state of not-Iness), I must turn my love outward. This will strengthen the not-I in me. And when the not-I is strong enough, heaven will be attained. But there's a conundrum here: logically, I shouldn't want to attain heaven, because it means the elimination of I. There can be no I's in the state of not-Iness. So why should I even try, especially if I like myself so much? Only because I've heard that being not-I is a happier state than being I, and I'd like to experience it, even though by definition I can't. It's a real dilemma for I.
e

Toleration

It's summer again, my mind is following water. But I did have a chance to hear Obama's speech – quite heartening to hear some truth spoken.

I'm glad he mentioned religious tolerance, but I would have liked to have heard him say that all three religions believe in the same fundamental God: the one mysterious all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, all-loving being (Haiku God, no less). The religions just see It through different cultural lenses, believing in different conceptions of the inconceivable. So it seems on the surface that there are irreconcilable differences between the religions. But as Obama pointed out, the three religions all agree on the one basic Rule: Love, as in “Do unto others...”

I think the majority of people intuitively know this, and are therefore tolerant. It is those who have invested their egos in the belief that their religion is the only true one who are the intolerants, causing many of the problems in the region, such as the settlement problem in the West Bank. After all, God gave the Jews the land of Israel (including the West Bank), so of course they have the right to settle there. Well, maybe it's time for the tolerant majority to be intolerant towards intoleration and not allow this one religious belief to doom the Middle East to unending conflict.
e

I (not-I)

Just thinking about the previous post, a question comes up about the difference between I and not-I awareness. As far as I go, I know I am awareness. I am awareness in the I-mode. I'm the subject of awareness, objects are what I am aware of. Now, by definition, I, as individual, cannot be the subject of not-I awareness (awareness as not-I, non-individual). So if I'm not aware, what is? Since there can be no individual subject, what's left? It could only be awareness itself. And what's the object?

From all reports of those who claim to have experienced the state of not-I, the object of not-I awareness is light, inexpressible love/compassion/bliss, void, and being one with all (sounds like Haiku God). Then the question arises, if one, can't we call this one an I? An individual one which encompasses all individuals? consists of all energy/awareness existent which is in effect one great individual unity? The I of “I am who am?” (the who ams being all individuals, including me).

It's getting kind of cloudy. Happy Mayday!
e

2 views

There seem to be two different views of afterlife.

First is the familiar Western view, which as I understand is to live life as the individual I am and try to do the best I can, basically believing and following what someone else says is the best way, be it book, church, or preacher. And the best way? To practice virtue. Then when I die, if I have practiced enough virtue, I go to heaven, where I (as an individual) experience what is described as the presence, vision, or knowledge of God. Since God is love, the experience for me must be nice indeed. The great thing about this view is that it retains ego (I get to survive!). Comforting feeling for the ego to have.

Whereas in the East (as well as in Haiku God theory), my ego, my nature, is at root nothing more nor less than “God” (as the holy spirit). So the point of life is to discover this original nature (our face before we were born) and then become it. And since this original nature is not-I (unity/love), to discover it I must transcend I, (ego/separateness) and actually become not-I. This would be true heaven indeed. And the way? To practice virtue.

So the big difference is the perceived end of the practice of virtue. In the West, I will survive. In the East, I don't. I drop away. And I can do it today - no need to wait til death. Of course if I did manage to drop away today, what would be left? A saint. And who wants to be a saint? I sure don't. Doesn't seem like it would be much fun. I like being I.
e

Forgetting

Ever had the feeling you've forgotten something – something important? And for days, months, years, it's there, nagging. I've have that feeling, and I know what I have forgotten – my face before I was born. I just wonder if I can remember it before I die. Or does it really matter?
e

New Commentary

For any Haiku freaks, a new commentary of 24 verses has been added at the bottom of the page to further obfuscate the theory.
e

Colors

It's spring time, so I've changed colors.
e

Taos

Taos is different somehow - my theory is that spiritual energy from the earth is concentrated here by the mountains embracing the town on three sides. Add to that the male energy of the desert and abundant sunshine, and a serendipitous balance is achieved. Whatever it is, it certainly seems to affect people. Most report a feeling of peace, some a heightened awareness, some even "hear" a hum. I share those feeling, and have heard the hum, but I also find that I don't think as much as usual when I'm here. I seem to be more in the moment, just doing stuff. The world is removed. It's a nice way to live, though I sometimes wonder how virtuous it is. And it is certainly not conducive to writing blog entries!

Being I

Sometimes I wonder why I am going through all this theorizing concerning Haiku God. Surely it is an interesting intellectual endeavor, but that's the problem - it's intellectual, not experiential. Even if I come up with answers, they are meaningless unless I follow through on the conclusion - to let go of I, and live as not-I.

In the Christian tradition, it is "thy will not mine" - "thy will" being not-I, or love. It's letting not-I/love run my life rather than I following my feelings, emotions, thoughts, and beliefs. It is practicing virtue. Intellectually I realize this is the true path - practically, I will most probably continue to question, continue to think, emote and evade letting go of I. I like being I.

e

Planting by the Moon

What really gets me about Haiku God is the electromagnetic aspect of It. Last night, looking at the fire (electromagnetic energy), that's God! My desk light this morning – God! It just goes so beyond the “God” meme of my upbringing; the separate father/son – the persons. God as Burning Bush or Thunderstorm, no problem – individualized concentrations of electromagnetic energy. But God as energy coursing through a light bulb? Where's the personality? Haven't heard a light bulb talk yet.

Another disturbing corollary of Haiku God is that since we are all basically electromagnetic energy, we must therefore all be God (We just don't know it). So what do We do Now?

If You like to garden by the Moon, and if the Ground is workable, Today is a great Day to plant Peas. Lucky for Me, I can do It in the Sunshine.

Happy Losar.
e

Knowledge

There are two kinds of knowledge which concern us here. First is intellectual knowledge – words, ideas, concepts and beliefs, centered in the brain. This is individual “truth,” every one having their unique point of view, not always coinciding with Truth itself. It is I. It is a limited kind of knowledge.

Then there is experiential knowledge – beyond words, beyond comprehension by I; mystical, centered in the heart. This is universal Truth, the other side of Reality (both sides comprising Haiku God). It is Not-I.

So why read the Bible, Koran, or any other sacred book when the only thing you have to do in order to discover and experience Truth is to follow the golden rule? Then you don't have to believe or search any more, because you will know. Love. (Not- I).

Easier said than done (but worth trying?)!

e

Macro Haiku God #10

Left has passed through right
Left is positive, male; yang
Right is female; yin

Try to comprehend the whole picture!

And thanks to NASA.

e

Hard to accept

God is awareness
Electricity is God
It must be aware!!(??)

This is certainly the hardest part of the theory to grasp. Electricity, photons, light; all electromagnetic energy must be aware. Awareness and energy cannot be separated. Perhaps the best way to try to visualize this is to think of ourselves - we are matter (our physical body) and electromagnetic energy (our "life"). As a living being, we are aware. Life (energy) and awareness are the same.

All the same, when I look at my fire in the morning, I can't imagine it being awareness. What is it aware of?

e