The Pageless Book

Above Photo by Joka2000. Photo Below by Alan Turkus. Final Photo by Joel Friesen.

Of Sandalphon, the second part of The Gated Emptiness, changes in tone and language from the rest of the text. The perspective shifts from third person to first person; little doubt is left as to whom is speaking. God speaks to us directly in these passages in a strangely humble demeanor.

I must remind the reader that this is filtered through my own consciousness. While I have perceived God speaking in a humble manner, it might be a result of my own discontent with the demanding God of the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions. This means nothing as to the true personality of God; it is my understanding that our concept of personality is meaningless when compared against true divine consciousness. The text reads:

I am confusion. I am confused as you are. I am you.

Now, these three statements pose a significant problem - God isn’t suppose to be confused. Isn’t the Divine suppose to have some plan? Theologically, this can be pretty disturbing. However, there is more here than what is on the surface. The word “confusion” comes from the Latin word “confundere” which means to pour together. In the word’s evolution, it has also passed through old French as meaning “to overthrow”, before coming to the English language as meaning “mental perplexity or disturbance”.

All three of these definition play a part in understanding the meaning of this text. First, we are told that God embodies confusion. We are confused as to the nature of God, as it is beyond our ability to comprehend. What does it mean, however, to say that God is the embodiment of overthrowing? This becomes more clear with the second statement; saying that God is “overthrown” implies that God changes. Like we do, God evolves and learns through alternating between confusion and realization.

Yet this leads us to another question - why does God need to evolve or learn? With the third and final statement in conjunction with our third definition, this answer is laid to bare; we are apart of God. Just as we are several things “poured together” into human form - muscles, organs, cells, proteins, and atoms - God is also the admixture of several things; the only difference is that God’s “things” encompasses all. The text continues:

You will not be rid of me. You might shred off the fat and skin of your body, skewer your flesh with your own bone and I will be in pain with you. If you should love yourself, I would love you.

Well, if God is inherent in all things, and all things in God, it makes sense that we could not get rid of God. When we suffer God would suffer, just as when we cut our finger, we feel the pain with our finger. Should we choose to love ourselves, God would love us in return as we are apart of God. Only when we become hateful does the Divine become hateful towards us, just as we would hate cells that turn cancerous within our own body. Yet God is not done speaking about his love for us; the text continues:

Innumerous are the ways in which I love you. I love you with death and I love you with life. I love you with pain and with ecstasy. I love you with the blue empty sky and the full brown earth. I shall not save you from my love; I made you to see, and you shall see it all.

Death and life, pain and pleasure, all that is above and all that is below - all of our individual experiences are manifestations of God’s love for us. Our purpose in life is to find meaning within those experiences, to learn, and to evolve. We cannot be asked to be spared heartache, pain, and suffering; we would be in affect asking to remain unchanged, uninspired, and ignorant. Worse yet, we would be asking God to remain unchanging, uninspired, and support us like some parents support basement dwelling men and women in their early twenties.

I suspect that some would disagree with what I have written here, considering that my interpretation of this text amounts to answers for long-held insurmountable questions. To think that a few sentences are enough to answer the question “what is the meaning of life” or “why does God make us suffer” would be foolish on my part. However, I dare to suggest that what I am getting at is a fairly good guide towards answers for those questions. Like a finger pointing to the moon, it is important not to misinterpret that which points to the truth for the truth.