There is a question
that, to my mind, flows fairly naturally from the basic determination that more
than just the physical exists, that there is also a non-physical. That question
is: why?
This is, to some extent,
the creation myth.
Now, the way I work
out an answer to that is based on the evidence I have of how things are in the
non-physical, and one of the key features there is that, in the non-physical,
what we perceive as ‘distance’ in the physical is replaced by closeness /
harmony of basic being (or, if you
prefer, similarity of fundamental frequency), which means it is harder to
be in the presence of disharmony when you are in the nonphysical. That means being
loving and nice is easier … but being challenged on the depth and breadth of
your love may be harder to experience.
In the physical, on
the other hand, you can find yourself in the presence of people who are
different, or not in harmony with you, and thus learning to spiritually love
them is harder even though there is not necessarily anything ‘wrong’ with them
- and, as a result, the growth you make is better.
This means that the
physical came into being - from a spiritual perspective
- to ensure that we have a chance to come into contact with those parts of the
Universe’s variety that we may not otherwise even know existed - and, ideally,
learn to get along constructively with those who are different. That gives the
Universe a chance to mix and draw on the best of all combinations of skills -
the Universe itself seeks diversity, as that has evolutionary advantages. If
multiple solutions to ‘a problem’ or ‘a (valid) need’ can be tried at the same
time in different ‘places’, then the Universe won’t be trapped in a dead end.
Life will go on, and will continue to grow and evolve because all the skills
and perspectives that are available can be combined in the best possible way by
people meeting those who are dissimilar, and learning to get along and then
work together.
Some people talk
about the essential unity of all life, and the Oneness of all things: any such
talk that does not consider the issue of disharmony and difference is, in my
opinion, meaningless, naïve and superficial.
Similarly, views that
the purpose of the physical is to show beauty and variety are, despite the
undoubted existence of said beauty and variety, flawed as they do not consider
the rest of
Reality
(the ‘Greater Reality’, as Lobsang Rampa
terms it; see also here). Mind you, being in contact with people and places that are not
in harmony with oneself, as can happen in the physical, improves one’s ability
to understand just how much variety there truly is in the Universe - physical
and non-physical.
Those views that
state the physical exists for the purpose of learning and growth, or learning
to love, are also inadequate, in my view, as learning and growth can also occur
in the astral. Learning to love can also occur in the various nonphysical levels
of existence, albeit without the challenge of contact with disharmony. On that,
I note the following comments, attributed the Nine’s spokesperson, ‘Tom’, from
Stuart Holroyd’s brilliant
book "Briefing
for the Landing on Planet Earth":
''If they treat all as they would desire to
be treated, if they walk in dignity and neither attempt to remove from another
nor permit to be removed from themselves their dignity, and if they have love
for their fellow men and for all that they come in touch with, this in turn
sends love to us.’
and
‘A unified infinite intelligence supported
by pure love and which grows with pure love.’
However, cranky old
me has a few problems with how the issue of (spiritual) love is viewed by many
in this level of existence - largely inappropriate responses, but also the
issues of becoming addicted to ‘warm fuzzies’, failing to take account of the
fact that we train others how to treat us by our responses, and forgiveness vs.
justice. Some of my concerns are addressed by the references to dignity in
Tom’s comments.
Nevertheless, all the
preceding, I guess, sort of explains the ‘spiritual need’ for physical reality to
exist - to my satisfaction, at any rate :) Let’s have a quick look at some
other creation myths. I’ll begin with Wiccan.
When I experienced my
Wiccan training, I was taught that the Goddess initially existed as chaos
until, lonely, she split off a part of herself, which became material
existence. Missing that part of herself, she then pursued it by sending sparks
of herself – all the souls that inhabit this world – into the physical (which
is termed ‘devolution’), each tasked with the quest to return back to its
source – the Goddess.
It’s a creation myth
that encompasses the ‘Big Bang’ (well, as I was taught it, at any rate), and
the idea that we came into physical existence for a purpose (effectively, as
expressions of the Goddess’ desire for the God – the desire to be physical and
have incarnate experience), after which we return to a state of union with our
source.
I can see parallels
between this and other belief systems – yogis and yoginis talk of achieving
Union with Deity, and the very controversial Castenada claims shamanism is
about delivering oneself and all that one has experienced to be swallowed by
‘the Eagle’ upon one’s death – sharing one’s life experience with the Source,
in a sense.
Not much in the way
of sitting around on clouds playing harps there …
The Wiccan creation
myth also introduces the idea of cycles – devolution into physical existence,
then evolution back to the Goddess – a cycle which is replicated on a smaller
scale through reincarnation of each soul. I’ll have more to write about the
idea of cycles, particularly the ‘Yugas’, later. I tend to view this as a view
on the emotional aspects of why Reality exists.
The old northern
European creation myth, on the other hand, gets more into what I would consider
the mechanics of how reality came into existence (although I can see some similarities with the Wiccan view, in terms
of polarities).
In the old northern
European creation myth, initially there was
Ginnungagap, a vast
nothingness across which ice from the world of
Niflheimr and fiery sparks
from
Muspellheimr met,
and started the creation process, which went through a sequence involving a
giant,
Ymir (that link is well worth clicking on, including for the review of the
sources of the myth as I have included it, and possible connections elsewhere), who was nurtured by milk from the
primaeval cow
Auðumbla, then slain and his body used by
the Gods
Odin, Vili, and Vé
to create the Earth.
The key for me in
this myth is the issue of dynamism - the tension between fire and ice, akin to
the dynamic balance between yin and yang as portrayed in the
Taijitu, is what
creates, drives and renews the Universe.
So … there are other,
equally valid views on the
purpose
of existence: read them, think about it all, and then make up your own mind :)
As of the time this
definition was written, I’ve touched on this idea in the following posts:
