Buddhists talk about Enlightenment the way Romantics talk about God the way psychoanalysts talk about the Unconscious: so close, and for that very reason, so far.
One lesson you can draw from this is that all sacred things, all non-goal goals, have a quality of being near AND far, here and gone, easy and hard.
Another lesson is that non-dualists can't help but objectify that which they think eludes and exceeds objectification.
There's no way to talk about ultimate things without turning them into entities.
There's no way to talk about ultimate things without turning them into entities.
New Agers reject the idea of God as an entity, preferring to imagine God as a state of mind or way of being, or as a "Frequency." But they end up simply turning a brain state into the same function that Aristotle's Prime Mover plays.
In other words, the problem isn't God-talk, it's language. Change your vocabulary all you want, your sought after Thing is going to remain just as near and far, just easy and hard, as that which others have sought under a different name.
God is a noun. God is a verb. God is an adjective. God is silence. Go on. There is no progress in theology.
Which is all to say do what works. But don't be absolutist or supremacist about your new vocabulary.
File under: "Why I am Not a Non-Dualist."
File under: "Why I am Not a Non-Dualist."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
