|
* * *
Spiritual connection happens between two persons only when the potential for that is present within each one. That is, the connection that day would not have happened had something in each of us not been readied for it to occur. Persons involved in such communion may not even be aware prior that such connection is possible or possible for him or her. And one may think such possible, but that he or she was not prepared for it; it can happen, anyway.
Such connection manifesting is fruitage, meaning a consequence, even as when a plant grows from cultivated ground. The connection in itself is not fruitage, however, but timeless. Connection is the Eternal arising in time. Time is the arena of preparation, not the Eternal.
However, as with the rose, connection is not guaranteed by the cultivation of preparation. Why it happens at a particular time remains a mystery? That it happened at a particular time is important and may have been given for a specific reason, likely only arrived at through spiritual discernment following the sharing, possibly years later. That is, a connection expressing Grace becomes revelatory, veiling a truth the mind, at present, may not be readied to receive. Yet, in truth, Grace never veils, only the mind cannot receive the discernment; indeed, often the heart knows, the mind does not. This is true if we do not interpret the heart as the emotional center: heart is the subtle knowing aspect of Being, not the emotional aspect.
* * *
The social worker and I left together. I was kind of in a stunned state of mind. After she had driven away, shortly afterward, I called her to inquire did she sense anything different in the sharing. She replied not. I was surprised, for during the meeting, the social worker kept looking toward me, as though she knew something was happening. Yet, also, the social worker was conventionally fundamentalist religiously, and what was happening, based on my knowing her, would have been outside her frame of reference as possible. Her experience of God was based on doctrine and emotion. Connection defies the boundaries of both belief and feelings. Connection appears to communicate Feeling, or be accompanied by Feeling, yet outside all we know as feeling. No spiritual connection is within a religious or spiritual frame of reference, any frame of reference. The fact that connection is referenceless is why it is so humbling. We are humble at the loss of control in not finding a point of reference for pure Grace. And, even in such connection, the other may be known as more than a means for Grace, rather known as Grace Itself. Yet, it is not the other as, say, "chaplain" or "granddaughter of patient," but the I of each ~ God, Spirit, Love, the Sacred. Conventional religiousness and traditional psychologies provide no room for this kind of graceful Intimacy.
* * *
Religions would generally be intolerant of what happened that day, either in defiance of the possibility of it happening or a translation into a form acceptable to its dogma, which amounts to the same thing. Why? Any spiritual connection, rather than one among the variety of social relations, is a threat to egoic religion and to egoic spirituality that parades itself as more enlightened than egoic religion: yet, egoic dressed however is egoic, both are intolerant of what threatens the egoic dogma and drama. Yet, ironically, religion itself provides a framework for such connection, for religion is, most often, grounded in an ancient experience of connection. Yet, connection itself cannot be held within religion, and that is what religion comes to attempt to do. An example, Jesus lived and spoke of connection with the One he called Father, and this connection becomes a connection with a Christianized version of that timeless, ever-fresh communion. Jesus himself becomes a mental idol, a dogmatized reductionism, to be held within the teachings of an institution. Persons turn worship into a sentimentalized, emotional adoration of Jesus, forgetting the truth of immediate communion, or, likewise, into arid, intellectualized ritual. The connection appears to be captivated by church, which is the illusion. Connection itself remains free of, not bound by. Institutionalization, in all forms, appears the death of living Life, when institutionalism refers to institution being itself a death. What are we, ourselves, to do directly with this experience of connection, which we find little support for outside us?
Continued... |
