There is no doubt that some sort of split has taken place, otherwise there would be no need to seek anything, much less seek God. Whether God is distant or “closer than hands and feet” does nothing to alleviate our frustration, as long as we engage the question with our mind only. What does it mean to say we are evolving? Is something missing that has yet to form within us? Are we “learning” on the cellular level to better adapt to our environment? If so, we had better pick up the pace, because the environment is changing faster than we are.
How is it that some can say that the universe was “designed” by God? If that is true, then I think He should redesign it, don’t you?
When we write a mathematical equation, such as E=mc2, are we saying that energy “evolves” into matter, or matter into energy? Is matter absent from energy or energy from matter? If it were, then the equation would not work; both sides have to equal each other – the equation must be balanced.
If we view our lives as “deficient” in grace, or imperfect, where is the equation? How could we possibly get to that state if it were not already in us? Salvation, preached from that standpoint, is mathematically impossible.
As a word, “evolution” is problematic. It implies getting from Point A to Point B. Spiritually, this is impossible. One cannot “get” anywhere on the spiritual spectrum. The only way we can attain spiritually is to become that which we seek. This is not a foreign concept: “Seek ye the kingdom of heaven within.” That which we are seeking is seeking us. “What you are seeking for, you are seeking with.”
No wonder fundamentalists have a hard time with the word “evolution.” Inadvertently, I presume, they are sensing their own inherent divinity (though they would never call it that) and are rejecting the notion that God is absent in their life.
So, the upshot is there is no such thing as evolution, but only in the sense that 2 + 2 “evolves” into 4.
2 + 2 IS 4, just as we ARE God.
This is not to say that we are “predestined” either. Unless having an infinite potential as your destiny gives you pause, I would say go for it! The mathematical equation we are talking about here is pretty big – way too big to fit on a blackboard.
The boundary between us and It (infinite potential) is as thick or as thin as we make it. All spiritual practices are designed to get you across that boundary. The way of the world is to reinforce that boundary by all available means. The problem with that is that reinforcing the boundary keeps us from realizing our infinite potential. And that is the root cause of all suffering.
Rather than aspiring to be spiritual, which gets you nowhere, it is far better to let go of that which you think you are. It is better to cease identifying with your problems and look within for the balanced equation that you are. Stop saying, “I’m not perfect,” unless you intend to stay stuck on one side of the equation.
Of course, if you use that as a justification to do whatever you want, then you haven’t gotten it. That’s only the one side claiming to be the whole, which it is not. It is far safer (and faster) to contemplate the other side and let it express itself in your consciousness. This requires a bit of sublimation of every impulse that originates from this side. St. Paul said, “I die daily,” and it is this conscious act of sublimation that he was talking about.
Notice that I said a “bit” of sublimation. If you try to do this 24/7, your body and mind will rebel. Count on it. And, in all likelihood, they will win. Instead, pick a time during each day, or a day in each week, or even a day each month, and approach this the way an athlete approaches training. Train hard with fierce intensity and total concentration – then rest. Be smart – build a pattern. Let that pattern shore up your intention. Do it in “layers,” which is to say an orderly repetition. A layered structure is stronger than one that tries to do it all at once. “All at once” is the surest way to fail.
Brilliant. The book I wrote is “Return: Becoming the Beloved”. It is about the process that you described, but you said it so simply and clearly.