Thursday, 25 August 2022

Illusion and Sin

 There are two valid approaches to the spiritual path. They are markedly different from one other and this means that the real path should incorporate them both. However, many people opt for one and ignore the other or else pay the other only a token acknowledgement. In the case of the second approach this is limiting but not spiritually deadly. In the case of the first approach, it can indeed be spiritually deadly. It seems that this first approach is becoming more popular these days, and part of the reason for that is is because it appeals more to the desire for power, spiritual power, personal power or just general self-expansion which latter term would include the expansion of consciousness. Desire for power motivates us all whether we admit to that or not. This is actually a good thing because we are meant to grow and increase but it becomes a bad thing when pressed into service by ego or the fallen self as it would be called in Christianity.

I wonder if the devil and his fellow fallen angels are really in hell. Don't be alarmed but hear me out! What I mean by this is to question whether these beings are subject to permanent pain, torture and suffering as would traditionally seem to be the case for the denizens of hell. I would speculate that many spiritually fallen souls do indeed experience these privations but the higher ranking beings in what C. S. Lewis wittily called the Lowerarchy may not. At least, they may not in the way we think. They will certainly suffer the loss of the proximity to God and be deprived in that respect but they may have means of anaesthetising this loss through artificial means rather as drugs can be painkillers. The devil can certainly bestow the sensation of expanded consciousness on human beings and by so doing lead them to thinking he is an angel of light. This is why one should always treat any supposed spiritual experience with circumspection. Does it foster love and humility or does it lead to inflation? If the devil can do this to humans, and he can, then it is reasonable to assume he can enter into such states himself. He is/was a great angel. He has lost much but not everything. He has lost God but not what he was himself or not all of it anyway. I think that the demons can steal spiritual energy and give themselves false spiritual 'highs'. This is part of the reason they attack humanity, to absorb light they can no longer absorb directly. The devil suffers on the true spiritual level but he may experience a high degree of consciousness, simply by virtue of what he is. He is a thief and he can steal spiritual goods though he can never hold on to them.

The reason for this digression is to illustrate the potential problems with one of the two approaches I mentioned earlier, the one I said is becoming more popular partly because of the power aspect but also because it draws the intellectual type of seeker who regards himself as halfway divine already. Jesus said we are gods but the devil also said that. There are gods and there are gods. There are gods in Christ and there are gods in Satan. Choose carefully which one you want to be. To be a god in Christ means to let Christ into your heart. You become a god through him. To be a god in Satan means to seek to become a god in your own right. You are divine. Godhood is your right because you already are God. This is the created being seeking to usurp the rights of the Creator. These rights are not yours but can only be bestowed by grace.

The two spiritual paths are illusion to enlightenment and sin to repentance. Many people today prefer the first because it asks less of them. They will admit that enlightenment requires the giving up of ego but they think this just means seeing through the impermanence or transience or illusionary nature of the ego state which fades away by itself in meditation or when higher states of consciousness are reached. Not so. Giving up ego is not an intellectual exercise and nor is the fallen self something that you just 'see through'. It requires genuine self-sacrifice and repentance of sin to defeat the ego. So much sin is unacknowledged by the seekers of enlightenment because they regard sin as part of illusion. It is not or, if it is, it is much more than simple ignorance. We live in a state of sin because we are fallen. No amount of wisdom or enlightenment will change that. It must be renounced through full repentance. This is the only water that washes away the stain of sin from the human heart. The seekers of enlightenment may attain higher states of consciousness, spiritual power (of a sort) and great knowledge. They will not attain union with God or heaven unless they repent their sins. And their spiritual accomplishments may well lead them deeper into sin if they are not careful. The devil doesn't just trap people with material wealth and power. He can also trap them with spiritual wealth and power. It is only the recognition that you are a sinner and repentance that can defeat him.

Those seeking enlightenment need to understand that they are sinners and the full implication of what that means. You cannot become divine merely by recognising your own true nature. You are potentially divine but can only become truly so as a gift from God, and that gift is only bestowed on those who fully abandon their fallen self in repentance. Of course, this is an ongoing process but God looks for the sincere heart and rewards that accordingly.

To point to the flaws in the search for enlightenment does not mean that search is wrong or sinful in itself. It is very necessary to see through illusion and to strive for higher understanding. But let this be done by the soul dedicated to Christ, one that recognises that any divinity we might acquire comes not from within ourselves but in and through him.

5 comments:

  1. Very clarifying. Good nuanced view on the differences between Christian mysticism and Eastern Enlightenment (or at least the traps one can get into as I recognize many on any path may have genuine intentions).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks ted. Yes, they often do have good intentions but the spiritual path examines the heart at the deepest level and good intentions may mask less worthy motives.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey William,

    This is an age old question - what is "higher" or "truer"? Bhakti or jnana?
    The history of Vedanta is one long discussion of this metaphysical mystery. I think personal spiritual temperament has alot to do with it .

    ReplyDelete
  4. No, it's more than that, Chris. I don't think framing it in Vedantic terms is enough. It really is a question of how you tackle the fallen self which is different to the concept of the ego. It's not a matter of metaphysics which is an intellectual thing but of spiritual reality, something much more visceral.

    Besides you could say that jnana without bhakti is useless. I would certainly say that.

    ReplyDelete

  5. Yes, agreed, it's definitely more than that .

    I regard metaphysics as the "science of the Real" which is also much more than an "intellectual thing".

    Shankara himself, the arch-nondualist, often said that the jnani can never fail to be a bhakta, but the bhakta need not be a jnani. Love and devotion is essential .

    ReplyDelete