?

Ron’s Answer:

 

What Is?

At the moment there is a cool wind blowing.
It is a typical hot summer day and any movement is welcome; But this breeze stands out because it is so refreshingly cold, And it has a telltale density about it.
It feels heavy and carries the scent of distant rain.
I find myself listening for the sounds that will signal thunder. What a joy when still dryness suddenly turns to rivers of water.

Science tells me the world operates by causes which bring about effects. But if I watch my mind closely enough I find that first it registers an effect, And then looks around for the most likely cause.
So which order is correct?
Or are these simply two events which are always found together? In ancient times this was called the mutual arising of the world. Nature is seen as interconnected and united as a single whole.

This oneness of nature also penetrates into my body and mind.
The entire known world is known through chemical reactions going on inside my brain. I am evoking all realities through my conscious awareness of them.
So I am not just listening to this summer storm now roaring around me; But I am also creating it through my participation in life.
At this very moment and on this very spot,
There is one experiencing going on masquerading as both Universe and I.

Steve’s Reply:

In response to my brother’s eloquent answer to the question, “what is?” And I do mean eloquent, and elegant. I appreciate the form: three verses of seven lines per verse; reminds me of the three sevens of Revelations. seven seals, seven trumpets, and seven vials.

My brother’s point about experiencing the moment is presented well But, I'm left asking the same question.

 

What is at this very moment, masquerading as both you, and Universe? Is “IT” animal, vegetable, or mineral???

 

Ron’s reply:

Yes, what is it?
I don’t know!
Maybe it just IS.
After all, what is a flower, a meadow, or an unseen creek?

What is that crawling thing beneath my feet?
I don’t know.
I only know what it seems to be:
Unique expressions of a life which never tires of itself. Which eternally experiences itself from an infinity of views.

So my brother says that he does not know what “IT” is, only what it seems to be: “unique expressions of a life which never tires of itself, which eternally experiences itself from an infinity of views.”

If “IT” is an eternal, unique, tireless, infinite, self exiting life, why don't we just call “IT” God?

 

Ron’s Reply:

Why not call it “God”?
Because “God” is a 3 letter word representing a concept. And these living presences surrounding me are not concepts. Concepts are always wrong,
Because concepts are never the thing itself.
Concepts are like stone tablets.
But the “its” of the world are alive and moving.
And some have tiny little eyes that stare at me.

And I can stare back,
Because I too am not a concept.
I am the experiencing which transcends concepts.
So you won't call it God because “‘God’ is a three letter word representing a concept.”

Oddly enough “Ron,” also is a three letter word representing a concept; yet I call you Ron, and I'm never confused as to the fact that you are a living being, and not a concept. You call our mother “Mom,” does that reduce her to a three letter word representing a concept?

Why is the word “God”, which is a three letter word for the infinite self existing ONE, so different then your use of any other word for any other reality? A word is never the thing it represents, and is never confused as such.

Ron made no Reply.

Since my brother declined to answer my question about why the word “God” is so different then his use of any other word for any other reality, I will explain the problem to the reader. It is not, as he suggests, because it is “a three letter word representing a concept,” since all language has this aspect. His reluctance is because “God” is a three letter word which holds a different meaning to each of us. We are able to talk about “Mom,” without this conflict, because “Mom” means the same thing to both of us. The word “God,” on the other hand, means something totally different to each of us. It would be inappropriate for him to call “IT” God, because, his meaning for the word “God’ is different than his meaning for “IT;” Yet we are calling “IT,” “IT” in this exchange without a problem, because the two letter word, “IT,” remains completely undefined, thus avoiding this problem of semantics.

So with this explanation, I too will not refer to “IT” as God, for the remainder of this dialog.

 

Ron’s Reply:

 

Very well said,

 

We are as One on this. Steve made no Reply.