Sunday, May 15, 2011

Readings: Emily as Oracle

X
Sometime last week I read something, somewhere, that gave me what turned out to be the erroneous idea that today was going to be Emily Dickinson’s birthday. It is not—she was born in December. Nonetheless, I had already removed my copy of her collected works from the shelf in preparation for my decision that I would (on what I thought was her birthday) try to communicate with her, by using her poetry as an oracle.


I should probably mention that this plan was devised – almost certainly not coincidentally – with my having begun (under the influence of Facebook friend, Janette Tingle) to read A Course in Miracles. This I had to borrow from the public library, as it is apparently not the kind of book that a university library feels it necessary to acquire. (Well – as Steve Martin might say – Pardonnez-moi!) Having read the first two chapters, and the first section of the third, I find the book to be a repository of truth. It seems to support, among other things, my notion of the nature of Jesus’ mission.

Most people, in my experience, who are not able to understand Jesus as divine, consider him to have been a gifted moral philosopher. He was that, of course. But it has been my long-held understanding that strictly considered in his human aspect, and within the context of his earthly mission, Jesus was, above all, a psychologist. I believe that in our era he would have been at home in the school of existential psychology. But, perhaps more of that later.

Getting back to my plan to use Emily as oracle, this morning I opened her collected works at random to page 451, which contains at the top the following poem:

xxxxxxxxx964


“Unto me?” I do not know you –
Where may be your House?


“I am Jesus – Late of Judea –
Now – of Paradise” –


Wagons – have you – to convey me?
This is far from Thence –


“Arms of Mine – sufficient Phaeton –
Trust Omnipotence” –


I am spotted – “I am Pardon” –
I am small – “The Least

Is esteemed in Heaven the Chiefest –
Occupy my House” –


The oracle, you see, delivered. Yes, it did.

__________________________
UPDATE: It turns out that Emily Dickinson died on this date. Of course, she never really died, did she?
X

23 comments:

screamin'ian said...

Ask and you will receive...

Janette Tingle said...

what a masterful literary idea to "try to communicate with her, by using her poetry as an oracle..." your poetic creations are eternal, and naturally visionary and prophetic.

Anonymous said...

Happy early birthday Emily Dickenson! She would have loved this...i mean...she did love it, since it worked.

fiocle

MsWizard said...

You could always get a restraining order ....

Rodak said...

Thank you for visiting, my friends!

Tess Kincaid said...

Love the notion of Jesus as a psychologist.

Emily loved speaking to you today, even though it wasn't her birthday.

Rodak said...

Emily is a unique spirit. Thanks for commenting, Tess.

Ron King said...

Existential Jesus, it fits with death, freedom, isolation and lack of meaning. I like that. I also the Emily poem.

Rodak said...

Jesus is a psychologist when he teaches that when you lust after a woman in your heart, you have already committed adultery with her. He is an existentialist when he teaches that by their fruits you shall know them.

Ron King said...

Could he also be a physicist?

Rodak said...

Interesting question. In the sense that he is the Creator, I suppose there is the necessity that he would have created the laws of physics. But in his human role would a thing like changing water to wine be considered a matter of physics? I don't know. What do you think?

Ron King said...

My thinking is that when I read "the word made flesh" statement it implies that belief creates reality. It could be implied that every thought, feeling and belief has an effect not only on the thinker but on others in some unknown way, just as prayer is said to have such an effect. The term "quantum entanglement" from theoretical physics states that nothing exists in isolation.
When praying while running one morning over 5 years ago light came into my thoughts. I had been in conversations with a couple of scientists through my now closed counseling practice who initiated my interest in quantum entanglement and the study of light. Then as I began to listen to other highly sensitive people in my practice with this new info I began to realize that there counscious suffering may be intensified by the intrusion of distress that was not a part of their known environment, rather it could be that they were more open to feeling the general suffering of life in this world. A woman revealed to me one day something she had kept secret until she told me that many years ago she had an experience in which she saw cables of different colored light emitting from everyone she saw and passing through or bypassing them. She saw no empty space and felt claustrophobic. She can focus on this space at anytime but does not because it becomes overwhelming emotionally. Since God is described as being luminous and a light that is not produced by friction and lucifer is described as delivering a light that is caused by friction, it caused me to think in more detail about this. Energy is emitted as light and light has different frequencies. God's luminous light is the highest frequency which is perfect love. Experiencing God's light is transformative. The further we are removed from that light to the lower frequencies of light the less we experience a union of love and the more we experience a union of chaos.
So in John 16 or 17 Christ is telling his apostles that he wants them to be one as he and his father are one. Is he implying that we are one but not connected in love as he and his father?
I am not being very clear right now due to sleep deprivation. I am sorry.

Rodak said...

I would answer your closing question "Yes." I think it is the same as him telling us that we must be perfect as the Father is perfect.
I disagree with your use of "belief," however. Belief is based on perception, and perception is always imperfect, limited by the capacity of the perceiver, be it sentient creature, or mechanical instrument.
What can be obtained that is perfect is knowledge. That would entail a return to God and an abandonment of ego--self.
Your description of light is simply another expression of the Great Chain of Being. Have you read Ouspensky, btw?

Ron King said...

In Search of The Miraculous and The Fourth Way, yes, starting in the early '70's and referring to it over the centuries since then. He refers to the Ray of Creation and different vibrational states related to being mechanical or consciously aware. He asks an interesting question as to whether evil exists beyond the mechanistic state of awareness.

Rodak said...

Yes. I was going to suggest those to you, if you hadn't read them. I also read them back in the seventies for the first time.

Ron King said...

I agree with you that belief is based upon perception. I had an experience at age 3 when I was observing the body I inhabit crying and my mother and aunt came in to comfort me. As the observer I felt no connection to the emotional or physical sensation of pain in my body. Many years later my mother told me I started screaming the moment my grandfather died in another room. There was a level of intensity of connection and physical development of the brain that led to this event in which I think the soul's connection to the body becomes permanent and perceptions develop from internal reactions to internal and external events. The soul does not have knowledge to begin with but does have the interest to acquire knowledge about the world it inhabits and I believe is connected to other souls at this level of being while influencing and being influenced by and through this connection.

Rodak said...

I have never had anything even approaching the kind of mental/physiological/spiritual(?) experiences you describe, so I don't have much to add in that direction.
I have the vague notion that all sentient creatures 'possess' a fragment of Mind; that Mind is eternal; and that although everything physical is destined to decay, the Reality that is Mind lives on.
The ego is clearly a construct. We don't even need to be seeking 'enlightenment' to realize that much. And it isn't stable. The "me" and the "I" upon which we place so much value is a shape-shifting delusion.
Our task, if we want to 'evolve,' must be a taking-away, a shedding, a simplifying. And this means jettisoning even our fondest intellectual discoveries, in the end.

Ron King said...

I agree. What I described above helps me with being aware of thoughts and feelings that are not love based and the potential harm that causes others. Thanks for indulging me.

Rodak said...

You're welcome. But I'm not indulging you. This exchange has been wholly reciprocal.

Ron King said...

Rodak, You are a bright light from our generation and I appreciate you very much.

Rodak said...

You are not so dim yourself, my friend. I'm glad that we've met.

Katley said...

Emily Speaks from the Great Beyond :)

She and Dr. Seuss are practically gods in my part of the world. People call her the Bard of Amherst.

Rodak said...

And well they might