God in Nature - Paragraphs 11 and 12
I have been away on vacation for the last couple of weeks and it is good to return and be back with Bernadette today. We will be continuing with Roberts’ umbrella theme of God in Nature. Under this umbrella she has talked of two revelations, the first is Omnipresence and the other is God Immanent in Nature. Before reviewing these two themes from previous blogs, and to refresh the memory, here is today’s text:
“There is another experience worth mentioning. While not the original revelation of God-Omnipresent, it nevertheless awakens us to a Mysterious dimension of nature beyond ordinary existence. In this experience our whole being seems as if dissolved - become lightsome or buoyant - into a transcendent dimension of nature, a delightful and utterly fulfilling state of existence. The true nature of the delightful “Medium” in which nature exists and seems to drift, is the Omnipresent.
Immersed in Its mystery as part and parcel of nature, there is no sense of being one with anything; in fact, whatever “we” are, could be anything, it didn’t matter. What matters is the Omnipresent mystery in which all things exist, virtually a heavenly dimension of existence (for myself, I was convinced the elements of matter existed in this marvelous dimension and that this was their everyday experience). What we learn from this experience is that somehow nature itself exists in God. Thus not only is God Omnipresent throughout nature, but nature itself is immanent in God.”
As promised, let’s review Robert’s distinctions between Omnipresence and God Immanent in Nature. Roberts idea of Omnipresence is “”All Present” or “Everywhere” throughout creation…an Imageless, all pervasive “seeing” apart from what appears.” She goes on to say that “because this revelation lacks the particular” it is more of “a non particular presence, more in the order of an experiential knowledge than a discrete “experience.”” She also says that “because It defies being seen as an object or as residing any “where,” this mystery seems to be more present in open vistas than in enclosed places.”
As for her insight on God Immanent in Nature she states that “closely aligned to Omnipresence but still a step beyond, is God’s mysterious presence in or within nature itself. Where Omnipresence was global and never focused on the particular, this [God in Nature] is where the object of visual focus fades into the divine or the divine emerges from it…thus where God’s Omnipresence is global, aloof and impersonal, God Immanent or within nature is particular and personal.”
Now that these two previous themes are refreshed in our minds, however subtle they may seem, she goes on this week to point out another related, but different, aspect of experience that arises from the revelation of Omnipresence and God Immanent in Nature. This is an experience that “awakens us to a Mysterious dimension of nature beyond ordinary existence.” I must admit that after reading her description of this Mysterious dimension, and of her “whole being seems as if dissolved,” that I can relate. I’m not sure what she is meaning when she says “as if” she were dissolved. What I can relate to is her idea of “becoming lightsome or buoyant,” which can leave one feeling unidentified with one’s self, as well as being utterly convinced by some unforeseen means that, as she said, “nature itself exists in God.”
And this is the problem with mystics, some of the things they say seem quite radical and extraordinary, almost unbelievable, so much so that it is difficult to equate their experience with your own. I’m confident that anyone on the path of transformation has these experiences Roberts describes, they are a natural consequence of becoming more conscious, and if you read enough stories about other’s transformative journeys the signposts or consequences of growing awareness have similar elements and descriptions. My thinking on why there are differences in experiential descriptions is due to everyones unique life experiences from which our concepts, language, and psyche are formed; a potent and natural cocktail for diversity in descriptions of such experiences. Also, when considering the Enneagram’s three Centers of Intelligence, I believe descriptions of signposts or revelations along the path will vary according to what center you’re connected to whether that be the head group, the heart group, or the body group.
All that aside, today Roberts has me considering what is the best possible stance I can take to become more conscious of the Real. If the Real is true, if the Real is existing at all times, what blocks me from being aware or becoming more familiar with it? What beliefs do I hold on to that limit my seeing? There is, of course, no need to “try” or to “do more” to see the Real accept to remember to relax and surrender into what is actually happening. This relaxing or surrender includes my own experience of life. In fact, anytime I avoid or look away from what is actually here in my experience I may also be inadvertently avoiding the Real. It’s a journey to be willing to fully accept this being human with its weakness and frailty, which are uncelebrated traits in our highly individualized-be-a-success culture.
Yes, for today it is enough to just be with what is arising in my experience, whether that be grief, sadness, joy or delight. The journey is to be awake to it all and what a delight that we are granted such a gift. Today I am grateful for the opportunity to experience life fully. I do believe that is what Jesus meant by an abundant life.
