Religion - Paragraph 2
Let’s us continue with Robert’s text.
“Religion might also be defined as a life based on a specific revelation. Thus it can be regarded as the way a particular revelation is lived and perpetuated. But while revelation is first and foremost experiential, religion is usually the intellectual medium that conveys and passes it on. However, as already noted, where revelation is passed on solely by way of intellectual concepts - with its endless diversity of interpretations - it soon becomes obscured and corrupted. Only through repeated experience is a revelation continuously verified and perpetuated.”
Roberts reiterates what she has previously stated; revelation is experiential and becomes distorted through “intellectual concepts.” She is also saying revelation is understood through repeated experience making verification possible. I find this idea of verification fascinating because it is reminiscent of the scientific method, which is basically made up of questions, hypotheses, experiments, observations, analyses, and conclusions. Exploring revelation, particularly spiritual revelation, through the lens of the scientific method may strike some as worldly, but that is exactly where the experience happens; the world of human experience.
Let’s begin with the idea of questions and the invitation of Robert’s words. I’m not sure about you but I have a lot of questions. One question revolves around the idea of Love; specifically the phrase God is Love. Now, I have had some experiences of Love, and I’m not talking about emotionality on par with Hallmark. No, these experiences were/are some type of knowing that, indeed, everything is Love. The sense of it has a certain signature aroma and texture that is recognized by the heart but doesn’t necessarily consist of emotion. It is less head knowing and more a felt sense, something the mind can’t really understand.
So, how might the scientific method help with this invitational question? Let’s do a test run to see if Roberts is correct, to see if such questions of revelation can be verified, and let’s use the scientific method. Using my real life example of believing/knowing Love exists everywhere, the next step would be to work from a hypothesis. I set the hypothesis as everything encountered is Love. Just a quick side note, I realize this is a very subjective experiment and some might disregard the results, but for curiosity’s sake let us continue.
So how do I experiment with such a hypothesis? Well, given this experiment is actually happening in real time in my real life, my current method is to ask myself over and over again during the day “how is this not love?” No matter what I am doing or who I am encountering I ask this question. Now, as I intentionally live this question and note my responses I start making observations, without judgment. Interestingly, there has always been an answer to the question and for the first week I take note of the answer.
I was actually surprised to find that much of the time when the question was posed, “how is this not love?,” the answer was “it is.” This answer appeared regardless of the circumstances. For instance, heavy traffic with crazy drivers, the homeless lady you could smell a block away, or the beautiful sunset, all were infused with an aroma of Love. Now, bear in mind, I said most of the time, which means that my observations found love lacking in some scenarios such as when hubby made a suggestion I found off-putting. The question “how is this not love?” was met with silence and a certain rigidity on my part.
To reiterate where we are at in this project, we are now experimenting with our hypothesis and making observations finding that Love is present most of the time but not always. The next step in the verification process is analysis in order to understand why Love may be present in some situations and not others. As I kept asking the question and making observations, what I noticed is that there was a variable that seemed key to understanding why Love was sometimes present with its aromatic, full, and tangible presence and sometimes not. I’m quite confident that you are aware of what that variable was; me, of course.
As I continue to play with this experiment it is quite obvious that Love is always present but I am the one who blocks it. Another way I might dance with this experiment is to ask what in me is blocking Love at this moment? At first, as I watch and become curious, it is usually some emotion or story-loop running in my head. As I stay present with the emotion and/or story a past hurt, belief system, or trauma may become visible. The block may also be an automated personality pattern that divides the scenario into a dualism of me vs. you situation. Either way, once the block is uncovered real choice becomes possible.
Once choice is possible and I’ve processed through the block, then Love is back in the mix and I can show up differently. I was not sure how this verification process via the scientific method would turn out, which is really how it should be, but this process shows that verification is possible. It seems Roberts is correct, “only through repeated experience is a revelation continuously verified and perpetuated.” Imagine a riotous chorus of us involved in such verification. My conclusion is it would be a better world if more of us discovered that Love is perpetually possible!
