Posted 8 July 2017 by Sal
Continuation of Why All The Meanness in the World?
INQUIRER: Would you say that it is "fair" to state that "all that is is the will of source (Shiva)", since there really isn't any free will in the manifested (Shakti)? Like there seems to be a saying in the Bible "not a single leaf moves without the Lord's will" …?
Hence, following the same line, would you say that it is "fair" to say that "apparently, source is content with the way matters are right now, and so, any change could only come from source … If any at all …? I note that this goes into philosophy, but I ask the question anyway, since it lingers in my mind for a long time now.
SAL: Let me answer these one at a time.
"Would you say that it is "fair" to state that "all that is is the will of source (Shiva)"
Siva is a concept. In my view, that concept simply points to the changeless, knowing, aspect of you. Ascribing will to Siva or Source is yet another concept, the idea of which is to say that you are not in control. That is true. To then state, you are not in control because Siva or Source is, goes one step too far, in my opinion. That concept is a religion-based idea that most people seem to need to believe because they want, or feel they need to have a big daddy or someone who is taking care of things. What if there is none of that? What if there is no one in charge? What if there is no meaning? I'm not saying there is or isn't. But then what would that leave us? It would leave us completely alone. So I say yes, you have no free will, but that does not mean that there is some higher power that has free will and is in charge. I say simply, what is, is. All of these ideas, like Inshallah, meaning "If god wills it", or, "If It Be Thy Will", like the Leonard Cohen song, or, "Not a single leaf moves without the will of God", are all good and well as far as beautiful poetic imagery, and they do also have some benefit as far as relaxing the idea humans have of free will and control, but they are not actually factual, or certainly in no way are they provably factual or even truly knowable. For one who wants to be real and honest, those concepts are not needed, or even wanted. You stand alone, "Blowing like a leaf in the wind." Things are simply as they are now. There is no other possibility, now.
"Apparently, source is content with the way matters are right now, and so, any change could only come from source, if any at all …?"
This sentence turns source into an anthropomorphic being that wants to see things in a certain way, or that is at peace with what is. But is source some THING, or a BEING, that has these qualities? Wanting? Being content? Source does not want or do either. Source simply is. It is Being, (not 'a' being). Existence. There are no characteristics or human qualities. And again, the way I see it is the same as above—what is, is. No reason. No meaning. Otherwise, we start praying to source to give us what we want. And it is that need, that fear, that desire for something—security or whatever, that is the birth or religion, myth, belief and ignorance.
The question is, can you stand alone, knowing that what is, is as it is, and can only be as it is now?
Siva image by Cade Siemers