Mark Reinheimer — Angels of Light
[image links to the artist’s gallery]
is in process]
Instead of attaching qualities or names to the concept
of God, we can and should seek direct contact. It is this
form of relationship that comprises ‘knowing’ as it relates
to spiritual matters, and not understandings of names or scriptural
legalisms. The only kind of ‘knowing’ about ‘God’
that counts is the knowledge one receives from a direct education
at the feet of the primordial sources of awareness and intelligence.
Names, ideologies and concepts must always take on a denigrated
aspect and value in comparison to experience and communion,
else our texts begin to define the indefinable, and we become trapped
in the likeness of our tokens.
If we must begin the dangerous process of conceptualizing
God — we can still avoid some obvious pitfalls merely by examining
a few considerations we commonly ignore:
1: Things and beings aren’t our names for them,
nor are they ‘alike’ with our models of them.
2. Naming is a falsely reductive and falsely
divisive convenience — not a necessity for communication
or contact. Classification is similar. In Nature, there is only
one ‘class’: We Who Are Be - Come Ing.
3. Some ‘kinds of things or beings’ should
not be reduced to a limited model, else we lose the traditionally
conserved understandings related to limitless models, and those
of explosively living or rapidly modulating emergent character.
When we model that which should not be ‘seriously’
considered to congrue with our models, we should realize we are
making toys of speaking, not names or knowledge. We are
pretending things and beings accord with our discernments
and naming logics. As long as we remember we are pretending,
we are generally safer from the pitfalls of such games.
4. In real human experience angelic presence
or contact is contact with God.
Our modern culture frowns upon and disbelieves in these matters,
as do many modern churches — yet having had direct experience
of this I can say unequivocally that it is extremely difficult to
discern between God and an angel unless one has more than a smidgeon
of direct personal experience with both.
I can also say that the nature of angels is vastly
mismetaphied in general. Our ideas of them are not even worthy of
being called reductions — they are boldly and impiously fashioned
in the image of our fictions, and have little or nothing to do with
what they refer to, in many cases openly opposing what they pretend
to be raising high to our inner understanding.
‘Around here’ God and Angel are very close
to synonymy. Our word Angel actually means something akin to ‘unique
living vessel (of the) local assembly (of the) consciousness of
the unityBeing’. Angels are not myths, and they are not akin
to our christic or new-age models. Frankly, the simplest of them
would put the sum of our science-fiction to shame.
Angels are experientially accessible with or without
human ideas about them, and they may well be the reason we possesses
representational cognition at all. Contact with them is not
something reserved for special people, or special ‘religions’
or even those who understand ritual. It’s a lost human
birthright, and we’re born in the hope of direct access to
these realities of our source.
The problem is that we live on a planet that by and
large doesn’t believe in angels at all. The things we do
believe about them are so distorted as to wreck our access to
contact by framing the whole dimension we refer to absurdly
from the get-go.
Chi sets the table...
Long ago, a Zen Master known as Lin
Chi, a student of Huang Po, possessed amazing wisdom about
the powers and pitfalls of naming things. He knew better than to pretend
tokens of exchange were real, and preferred games which led beyond
them entirely. Lin Chi knew and spoke of the dangers of naming, particularly
in a passage in Barrett Watton’s translations in which he instructs
the assembly on four ‘ways’ of relating with names (identity).
I paraphrase it here from my own understanding, coupled with his translation.
There is the way of removing the person from the
Person is, environment isn’t..
This is the invented abstraction of individuation
as having precedence: i.e: ‘a self with a name’, ‘me’,
‘a victim’ or ‘a perpetrator’ This is the
common position (in Western thought) from whence we ‘reference’
This mode also may also be understood as ‘the
common universe of human speech, action, agreement, and thought’.
There is the way of removing the environment from
Environment is, person isn’t...
This is an invented abstraction which calls many by
the name of One: i.e: ‘the people of San Francisco’,
‘Negroes’, ‘The Politicians’. This is the
way we use to reference the idea of ‘Gods’.
This mode also may also be understood the ‘alien’
or ‘magical’ fantasy-universe of the experience of relation
without the ‘addition’ of a given or specific perceiver.
This is the transpersonal dimension drawn upon by our mythos, fantasy,
science-fiction, and poetics.
There is the way of removing both environment and
Nothing is...except the structures we apply in
testing or noticing this...
This is an invented abstraction which removes both
person and environment: i.e: ‘7000 were killed in fighting’.
Another example is our impetuous exclamation of ‘There’s
no such thing!’ in response to something we consider logically
or semantically absurd.
These matters are credentialed when we speak of statistical
abstractions, calling things or beings by the names of measurements
native to some specific system of accounting. Logics, mathematics
and sciences emerge from this mode. Its purpose is to remove content
from structure thus that the resulting highlighted elements are
easily systematized, and further abstracted — purportedly
to grant some form of intellectual power or liberty in most cases.
A mode of tool-like compression, it fails to attend matters of ‘lossiness’
This mode also may also be understood two entities
so distant or opposed that they negate each other’s reality
to some degree.
There is the way of no removing.
All is as it is...
This is a good way, and is a very natural and general
mode. Not too much added or subtracted, each being is at liberty
to define, fulfill and celebrate their station. Neither names nor
the lack of names and judgments are sufficient to obstruct the essential
communion of the truth of organismal and psybiocognitive unity.
We could illustrate these four positions as a game of
polarities, played with the root aspects of the logics we portray
to ourselves as ‘intelligence’, thus:
Examining this toy we can see that each of the ‘four’
polarities could be said to be ‘emanating’ from a central
position which is not properly ‘dimensional’ in the same
way the rays are. This central position can be occupied,
producing from Lin Chi’s suggestion a 5th position, which unifies
and transcends the presented polarities:
This is an ‘answer’ Lin Chi might seek from
an ardent student of the way who moved to surpass his presentation
entirely — a common goal of Zen practice. ‘A great beyonding
which proceeds to surpass rather than stabilizing in one place or
Matters surrounding ‘naming and identity’
are crucial to comprehend clearly, as they form a
hidden basis for meaning and distinction upon which all
our thought and judgment are primordially founded. If we are trapped
in only one of these, or denied the 5th position (and those beyond
it) we are soon at war with ourselves, our own laws and ideas, and
each other — because there is no way to come to a good agreement
about something which is falsified by inept polarizations before the
words and statements are even formed.
Naming is largely a game. When we make it more
than this, it can be a very deadly trap. If we instead understand
the powers and dangers of this game, we have the opportunity to set
these ancient problems aright: we can ‘see with many eyes at
once’ and thus are more alike with ‘that which we are’
rather than some peculiarly complicated model in terms.
The names of the unityBeing that we possess are toys
of contact, offered as gifts to us by those who sought direct experience
of the celestial home and the ‘living gardens of the sources’.
They are none of them ‘correct’ (unless the One they name
verifies them as such to you personally) — but instead are guides,
best used as transports to contact rather than foundations of dogma.
Some of these sacred toys are profound in dimensions
we have no words to describe, and I consider it true that intimacy
with them has great value, particularly if one is amenable to the
traditions from which they emerge.
:: next :: previous