+005.jpg)
~~~
At Redbridge station your mind wanders hopelessly. Is that the nature of bridges, or of your mind?
External circumstances narrow the range and scope for the internal movement of grace; or they make it more urgent, necessary. The great advantage of religion proper is that it deflates the ego: I am not at the centre of the world any more.
Flicking through some Merton you came across this line, which you love:
'The law is consistent; grace is inconsistent'
When all has been said and done, there are still some things unsaid. There is always something (but not everything) in religion that will resist the ways of the world, or be a vehicle for that resistance ("be ye not conformed"). The negative way: this is not me, this is not about me, not everything can be said or analysed. Religion, at its best, is about de-centering, or being ec-centric. Or, to put it another way: about finding another centre, a centre that is everywhere ("All that is, is holy").
The Arabesque: There is no centre, no 'fixation' on one point, and everything is connected.
~~~
This seems like a naive idea today but...if you see beauty, you will see it everywhere. Which is why religious exclusivity has always struck you as slightly bizarre. If you think red, you'll see other colours. "Red is an infinite task" (Iris M). 'Seeing' is not about a static image but an 'object' and movement to it.
For the mind to wander do we need bridges? Or are we all at sea?
2 comments:
i would say that simply standing on the shore and contemplating the sea, for ex., makes one acutely experiencing the "i am not at the centre of the world any more"-feeling, why would one need religion for that?
maybe of some bridges, yes.
:-)
hello, b!
yes, i agree with you...i think 'religious experience' can come in many different forms (Dewey's little book is wonderful on this).
I've written quite a lot here about how religion can be divisive and lead to all sorts of horrors. But I'm just saying that it can hardly be denied that on the other hand religion has through its rituals, its inspiration, led to lots of great things (G. Steiner makes this point with regards great art...if there is no north, north of the future, no sense of transcendence, then will we still get great art, music, etc.?)
Of course, one doesn't have to agree with Steiner, but I think it's an interesting question.
On a simpler plane, religion has also encouraged an idea of service to others (charity) and less of a focus on one's own anxieties and material possessions.
so, I'm not saying anyone "needs" formal religion but, also, I think it is important that religion has, at times, been a channel for such feelings, flights of imagination. Religion-in one form or another-has been part of human experience for thousands of years. I find that amazing.
You raise a fascinating point, though. I tend to see this through a Protestant/Catholic prism: do we need rituals, a 'church', dogma, teachers, or can the individual on his her own become a 'saint'? (Camus?)
b.
Post a Comment