My blog profile blurb once read something like this: “I am a seeker,
poet, counselor, […] alchemist and priest… in training.” Something like that.
And what I meant is that these are the directions I was moving and the kind
of functions I was dabbling in; the pursuits which had become meaningful and
applicable to me in various manners which lie rather outside the normal workings
of our commercial society. And I suspect that any regular readers of this blog
would get what I meant.
A friend said to me pointedly, “Have you been ordained? Because you
might be misleading people here.”
I confessed I had not been ordained in terms of actual ceremony under
the structures of popular religions and their recruitment of seekers of
lucrative employment. Nor, for that matter had I received any organized
instruction with the regards to the manufacture of gold out of lead. But I do
possess notable insights into each. Regardless, the meaning was not meant to be
literal.
The friend advised that I should not make any untrue claims and I took
this under advisement and later (possibly for another reason) changed my
profile blurb to a quote which I’d been trying to track the source of for
years! I loved the quote because it seemed to speak from my very own heart and
say precisely what I most cherished. And finally I discovered the source, by
the way. I discovered its very genesis in multiple versions in my very own
handwriting! I had loved the quote for its intimacy with my own feelings
because I had written the damn thing myself! And this is not the first time I
haven’t recognized my own work. I’m going to have to start copywriting my work
simply to make sure I remember it’s my own!
But I digress.
Am I ordained? In the ordinary sense, of course not. For a time though,
I thought some form of priesthood a wise choice of pursuits but I could not
find a religion which my own solid understandings could fully support. Humanism
came so very close but it was too devoid of legitimate joy; of wonder and spirituality; of regard for miracle.
Look at me still digressing.
I have since remembered the reason I put priest (in training) on my
blog profile. Because beyond the regular societal use of the word (and our
society bears no ownership of language by the way), I did indeed qualify by my
honest interpretation. I was – in theory only, without practical experience – a
qualified leader of a new religion: a fully integrated system of thought,
understanding, life-guidance and
problem-solving structure. A religion which chooses not to employ the term religion but which possesses the dogma
of comparable scope to that found in the books of Hinduism or Christianity for
instance. A religion with one founder, one leader and one participant: me,
myself and I! A religion without the numbers to suggest legitimacy of the banal
standard but with a global consolidation of theory and applicability which
frankly blows the mainstream religions away, by my own priorities, because
(according to all honest dissection it has so far suffered under my own
auditing) it:
1. appears to cover all the worldly and spiritual landscapes as the big
religions.
2. appears to unite said big religions under a common compatible set of
understandings.
3. appears fully compatible with the living experience of human beings
as interpreted by the clear mind and the five senses.
4. appears fully in line with the application of logic without
resorting to “God works in mysterious ways” or other such cop-outs.
5. does not suffer constant (or any) self-contradictions (especially
the constant contradictions concerning violence and punishment versus mercy and
peace).
6. appears fully in line with the science of the day (and without requiring
obscure translations to do so).
7. appears fully compatible with the teachings of eminent, perhaps preeminent, spiritual author Eckhart
Tolle.
8. appears to include, and fully consolidate, all relevant areas of
human and worldly consequence, leaving no measurable gaps or mysteries.
9. appears to supply the attainable solutions to any conceivable
problem.
Do you believe this claim? Does it seem outrageous? Too lofty to be
true? It’s not actually a big deal if you consider that these landscapes are
far less complex than we might otherwise interpret once you see through all the
fog and fragmentation of the illusions of mind and society. Regardless, I don’t
invite belief or even suggest belief; only awareness that the claim exists.
That is all.
My, what grandeur I must suffer from, eh? I must think I’m a Jesus or
Buddha, right? What I think is that Jesus and Buddha were
ordinary humans who were merely untethered from the constant bindings which
suffocate normal society and were simply free
to think simply, and were blessed with the opportunity to avoid a lot of
distracting, time-consuming work of a normal role in their societies, and the
associated stresses.
I don’t at all think that Jesus or the Buddha did anything which is beyond
the reach of normal humans and that the belief otherwise, the putting them on a
pedestal, is among the most harmful consequences of normal religions.
And if my above claim is true and is enough to qualify the work a
religion-of-sorts, then regardless of the rite of ordination and its legal
bearing, I would best qualify its leader, at least for now, in the current
absence of someone more qualified, whom I would eagerly invite or subscribe to,
for I interpret that my leadership skills are lacking.
Although, where among the above nine qualifiers is its “holy” book?
Alas there is none. Its “scriptures” are here, there and everywhere and very
much incomplete. And frankly I wonder if all the remaining undocumented
material is still retrievable from my mind.
I have so very often tinkered about with plans and short-lived attempts
at creating such a tome and the scope of the project feels often unbearable. It
is simply so big and interconnected that organizing it all looms a monstrous
beast.
I do possess a skeletal framework though (which only Neo has seen), which
is workable I think, yet somewhat flexible and arbitrary in arrangement, which
I produced years ago and which organizes the broad landscape into a hierarchy
of eighty-something sections, mapped by prerequisites. Some sections would
require further breakdown into chapters.
Perhaps my two attempts to write the thing from the beginning toward
distant end, in quite contrasting styles, were the wrong ways to go, and I
should simply expand on the framework in gradual stages; building it outward in
rings instead of trying to travel the linear circumference.
Sometimes I wonder what the point is in bothering with such a project?
My closest trusted associates seem to suggest it may be unnecessary. The result
will be so huge and unsuitable to any known genre of book that no publisher
will touch it. Yet perhaps this claim above is the very reason. Perhaps I need
to write it just for myself so that I can observe the result and confirm that
yes, a piece of written evidence exists to support my claim above, and on the
rare days I might wish to call myself “priest in training,” here is my
qualification!
