More thoughts on the blog and Baba

If I followed this outline of a path, trying to produce some reasonable reflection on the subject of my life in Baba, I could hope that it would at least not impede Baba’s work, but also and simultaneously advance the conventional wisdom about modern “spiritual” life. This could be a valuable contribution.

I came to Baba from a place of fairly extreme dissociation. Believing in the neurological underpinning of existential experience, transformed, admittedly by a teleological social reconstruction. There were reasons and stories that shaped the bare sensory bones of human life, and those linguistically, socially generated stories were the only palpable glue that created human life as we know it. Miraculously, but dangerously, these narratives permitted a degree of self-referential inspection, resulting in an “Aha!” moment for Western thinkers in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It was now possible to doubt the ground of our being more thoroughly than ever before. At moments the cold wind of isolation seemed to cut through many of our warmest social institutions: family, country, and religion.

For me, then, (this time) the pursuit of Meher Baba began with the serious consideration that the world was an optical illusion. That Maya, or the heart of our embeddedness in this world, was itself held together with our desires and with our related activities. So, seen from one perspective, the world, or framework, was one of individual neurological perpective framed by social/linguistic constructs. Seen from a 180 degree different angle, Maya was glued with personal karmic sanskaras and resulting personal actions.

Having written this paragraph, I admit that I have no knowledge of how to say this in a clear and logically consistent way. It is as if I have a yin and a yang symbol: one referring to a view of life that crudely corresponds to a modern, scientific reductionism: the other referring to a view with long roots in Easter mysticism, equally reductionistic.

But here is the starting spot. The path consists of reconciling these two views as long as is needed. As a “modern,” I can simply embrace the narrative of Meher Baba. My greatest risk is that some part of it will outrage some socially transmitted ethic of intellectual life. As a devotee, I can readily “underweight” these “modernistic” qualms, bearing with them until Baba chooses to shatter them with some direct experience of truth or love.

Another problem is that this "philosophizing" may be too dry and deadly. All of the Baba lovers I've known are happy folk. Focused, but far less trapped in their minds than me. In the mean time, I am not enlightened. Baba is, but I am not. And I accept (at least within the narrative) that “i” never will be. Jai Baba.

Blog Directions?

Meher Baba, Meher Baba. Doing the Jin Sheng Blues. I awake at 3AM, having been awake maybe five times previously this morning. I came in here to write out of a hope that I can fire this spark to become the producer, eventually, of some spiritual work. Some creative work. I am unable to do much in my daily work setting. In fact I am impressed at the moment with the stifling quality of my work environment. Thus it is necessary that I journal. I need the conversations, at least with myself, that will advance my thinking, so that eventually I might have something to say.

For me now, there are two themes that I have not reconciled.

First, the drive to understand, to analyze and broaden my reference framework far enough to stand on truly new ground. This has been a push for most of my adult life, and probably should have by now resulted in my earning a job professoring somewhere. It appeals all the time, speaking to me in bookstores especially: the hope that I could be the pioneer: the spokesman for all of us. I could be some minor messiah.

Then there is my other drive: not to be a minor messiah, but to follow and burn myself in surrender to the major Messiah. Meher Baba looms large in my daily life. I look at him am meditate. I read his life, and silently reflect on his name. There is relatively little chance for intellectual breakthroughs. Meher Baba has been described as a philosopher, but this label doesn’t appear to fit him. He is often wise, in a prophetic sense, and lovely, and intuitive, and even shows extrasensory responsiveness. But he is not wise in a worldly way, at least to me at this point.

Is there a meeting of these two strands? Does the first path of worldly wisdom lead inevitably to Meher Baba? Hardly, I should say.

Then to consider the contrary, does the mystical, devotional path necessarily block (at least the worldly) aspirations of the mind? There are indications that this is the case. Meher Baba’s followers have produced some good poetry. I cannot judge the art or music. But it all centers on devotion to Baba. Meher Baba was often opposed to his followers pursuing political goals. I am aware of no no brilliant social commentators nor journalists who espouse the cause of Meher Baba while producing decisive critical writing, with the possible exception of Francis Brabazon. Most of all, there seems to be little genuine, critical, introspective writing about the experience of loving Baba.

So this, then, suggests itself as a possible contribution: bringing the modern critical, introspective, perhaps even deconstructive sensibility to the experience of loving Baba. This can be of little value, I fear, to the “religious shopper.” I have never quite understood why someone who has not been bitten with Baba love would come to Him. Certainly the type of writing I'm thinking about would do little to advertise Baba love as a new religion. But Baba often said He came to establish no new religion. The more pungent question is, would such writing be disrespectful, or abrasive within the Baba love community? I think it might be, but there is a reason why that might not matter as much as one might think. Baba often promulgated opposition. He also suggested complete honesty, if ventured sincerely. And Baba love is as tough as old tree roots. Look at the mandali!

Smacks

A difficult fact to deal with, I would think for many, is the record that Meher Baba inflicted corporal punishment. He smacked people, sometimes very hard, even to the point of injury. For many of us, this alone would be sufficient to convince us that Meher Baba could not be the Christ. Some, however, would accept Baba's comment, that these blows are calculated not to vent Baba's anger, nor to punish people, but to remove difficult karmic sanskaras. Baba often said that people who received such blows were greatly blessed by them.

It is in this context that I look at the huge blow that was given to "Blue America." On the surface (and from my perspective), it would seem that most of the virtue was on the side of candidate Kerry. It would be possible, but rather beside the point, to make a case for that here. Yet President Bush was reelected, and given a free hand to carry on his questionable policies.

This has been a speculative blog so far, so I will continue further in that vein. What if by smacking "Progressive America," Baba was simply helping many people at once to shake loose of some sticky, false identifications, as a prelude to better, truer work in the future. Baba described his verbal blasts as "arrows of love." Could it be that he wants us to love truth more, and to keep going in that pursuit?

This chapter could be objectionable to many, but I am thinking a blog is to float ideas. Far more readers, were there any, would object to Meher Baba than to my Democratic identifications. Perhaps some might object to a mixing of the two. I'd welcome anyone's reactions.