Question: I was struck by the term “subliminal ideas” on page 24. I think that means any thought, belief or concept that we aren’t aware of having (like “I exist” or “inertia is a scientific fact”) and that keeps us from seeing Reality. If many underlying ideas are “subliminal,” how do we become aware of them enough to let them go?
Response: You do not need to be aware of them conceptually to let them go. You only need to be Aware of a leaning mind. Question: On the one hand enlightenment is nothing more than the direct and effectively unwilled realization that no concept ever fully encapsulates Truth and in this sense enlightenment is very simple and almost nothing special; on the other hand: without this basic understanding life makes no sense. Is this conceptual description of enlightenment and its significance to sentient beings accurate?
Response: Notice what you are doing. You are seeking a conceptual description of objectless Awareness. Just see. Question: How did belief come to be equated with religion in the first place? According to John Gray in SEVEN TYPES OF ATHEISM, our earliest religions had nothing to do with belief. They simply offered myths that entertained and explained (though not in the modern sense) and practices to be followed (burnt offerings, observance of rites, rituals, and celebrations, etc.) Beliefs weren't talked about or thought about at all. And Buddha, Confucius, and some others never spoke of beliefs at all.
Response: It probably all goes back to the Apostle Paul. Instead of following the teachings of Jesus, which were basically about observing the Law of God as He understood it, Paul repeatedly wrote that one can only gain admittance into the Kingdom of God by believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus—a claim Jesus never made for Himself. For Paul, however, this was the essential matter. As a result, much of the human world has now become infected with the pernicious notion that belief is not only imperative for human life, but necessarily good. Question: Do you think that we can and will ever give up our delusions and live a happier life with the unfolding present moments? And what percentage of people do you think can actually do this?
Response: Yes, we can, but questions such as these invite vain speculation. My immediate concern in this book is that we wake up. Question: Could you explain the phrase “Things are not what they seem nor are they otherwise”?
Response: This phrase is not in The Grand Delusion, though I have uttered it in many of my talks. Nevertheless, it does fit with the main theme of the book. Things are not as they seem (i.e., substantial, or Something), nor are they otherwise (i.e., insubstantial, or Nothing). Question: Is it not easier in life to just say “Uncle?” I just will never understand the unanswerable questions and either leave it up to “a God” or live my life and never bother myself with thinking about it at all?
Response: It might seem easier to give up and live with speculation, fear, and disquiet, but that in no way compares with the ease that comes with waking up to what you already know. Question: I do not understand the concept of not near or far, not big or small. Is the Universe NOT large and is Mars NOT far away? And, if it not near or far, then why is it taking the Mars Perseverance mission six months to get there?
Response: Terms like “near,” “far,” “big,” “small,” refer to what appears relative, not Absolute. They do not designate actual Nearness, Farness, Bigness, Smallness—whatever such made-up terms could possibly mean. Only in our conceptualized world of “this” and “that” does there appear a large universe where Mars appears far away from Earth. In Totality, which hasn’t any size, there is only here and now. Please check out the terms here, now, and Totality in the glossary. See also two truths in the glossary and then reread chapter 36. Question: Would the human race have been better off IF we had not come up with organized religion? Seems like all we have ever done is fight over it time and time again. Live the Beatles song “Imagine.”
Response: I don’t know what you mean by “better off,” but if we could learn to live by direct experience rather than out of belief we would have a much easier go at waking up to what we innately know. Question: Is there “anything” that is an ultimate truth that can be put into words? For example: Murder, Child abuse, God, Nature, Universe, Goodness, etc.?
Response: There can be no Ultimate Things, as such. If there were, “They” would be, of necessity, relative. Consequently, all nameable things are relative and not Absolute. In other words, "they" are objects of Mind, not actual entities unto themselves. Question: How can things exist and not exist!? Isn’t this confusion in itself? It either is or it isn’t. How can they coexist?
Response: What is existence? In your 3rd sentence, what does “it” refer to? This needs to be answered first. If you simply observe the object—by “simply” I mean “without talking to yourself or thinking”—whatever it might be, you can (and you may) eventually see directly that “it” is an imagined “thing.” What is less difficult to see is that what we innately mean by “existence” is persistence—i.e., that “it,” the presumed object, persists for a time, however brief or long. But this is what we never find. An object that persists. We only assume it. Go ahead. Name something. Look at it. Feel it. Think it. “It” doesn’t persist. Not even for a nanosecond. We don’t actually find existence, in other words. Consequently, neither do we find nonexistence. |
ASK STEVEIn this page you will find Steve Hagen's responses to reader's questions on The Grand Delusion. To submit a question please click HERE
TOPICS
All
|