This is an essay that I have finished but this is just part of it. if you want to read the whole thing you'll have to go to http://my-big-toe.com discussion board.

For the Entertainment of GOD

Perhaps the meaning of life is not so complicated as trying to reach a form of enlightenment or to pay homage to a self proclaimed god. Perhaps it is as simple as theatrical entertainment that ultimately evolves each actor within the worldly play of life. Many will take issue with this idea, I’m sure, but if we give this examination I feel we can find some definite meaning in such an analogy.

For years we’ve been taught that morality, for one, can lead to enlightenment. But can immorality lead to it as well. What if our lives are about entertaining the God of All instead of obeying. The ones who obey are still entertaining, but the ones who choose not to obey (in the eyes of this god, anyway) are just as entertaining and thus their learning will lead to enlightenment as well. At a glance this seems to be rather selfish to think of the people we label as “horrible” as having some redeemable presence in the world, but upon further scrutiny I think it may just be so.

Some will say I am merely making a case for avoiding the “True” path of which they are certainly walking, however, I think my interpretation of enlightenment easily makes as much or more sense. Yes, striving to overcome obstacles to spirituality may increase our awareness of “being good”. Yet without the “bad” the good has no actual meaning. There would be no drama. The bad ones are as integral a part of the quest for enlightenment as the good. Like actors in a play on the stage we serve two purposes: 1. To learn about a character and 2. to entertain an audience. We are all part of that audience. “Bad” people and “bad” situations scare us. These can even scare the bad people, but without them there is no frame of reference for the good. To say this is moral relativism is one way of passing judgment on the premise, but is it true?

What a boring world it would be without contrast. If we are aware we are acting here then nothing should keep us from pursuing our own destinies. There are those who follow the golden rule and those who choose to avoid it. In this place we punish the ones who avoid it and even sometimes punish them when they haven’t broken this rule, but that is the flaw of law. There does seem to be a standard for enlightened behavior, but this I must bring into question, especially if we are all actually acting on this world stage. We all have our part to play and it could just be that once we have shed this mortal coil of a body we remember exactly who and what we are, just as an actor exiting the stage becomes a much more complete person upon entering the “green room” off stage and then returning to the larger world outside the world of the stage.

Awareness becomes key here. IF I am aware of my true intent as the actor it may be quite different from my intent as the character. I create an entertainment within my life because of the juxtaposition of “good” and “bad” within my own life just as these qualities create the same within the world as a whole. One is not better than the other as far the entertainment is concerned. Each becomes its own expression that will hold the attention of the larger consciousness where we all exist together in a kind of harmony. As an actor graduates to a new level of enlightenment he may venture beyond this physical world stage never to return or to indeed return as a teacher of how to advance to these other stages, but this person then becomes part of the drama as they set up the very obstacles that can be overcome by the others. Even they do not have the market cornered on right and wrong. The very idea that they are taking the side of “the good path” causes the drama to excel as others make attempts to live according to another’s wishes and perceptions.
Does this mean hurting and killing people is permissible. Not really, as it has to be viewed as “bad” to keep the drama alive, but from this worldly perspective it is impossible to know if the character has done the killing or the actor knowingly is breaking the golden rule of “do no harm”.

When one is working on a stage in the physical plane the actor must do this according to certain rules or he will be dismissed. Fights are not REAL fights, they are staged. Perhaps what seems a real fight on our planet is known to be unreal, or at least should be, when viewed from the larger reality that houses our world but also exists well beyond it. This knowledge it seems to me is key to true enlightenment. Once I know I am in a play. I have the choice to follow my instinctual direction that may well come from a point outside physical reality or I can go it on my own as an actor who becomes something of a renegade, but then taking the chance that the source of my direction, the director, will reject what I have done and send me back to square one. But just maybe I will surprise the director and carry the entertainment in a new and interesting direction.

Here we come upon the notions of good, evil, and balanced behavior. Good excludes bad. Bad excludes good, and balanced neither finds refuge in either, but seeks to explore a more rounded set of possibilities where the decision space of the actor becomes much larger, thus giving the director more to work with to provide the ultimate entertainment.

Many say, “But my guides have told me to be good.” All well and good there. Their motivations could be two fold: 1. creating a drama of choices for the individual and 2. contributing to the overall drama within the world. If we are all good all the time there is no drama and the audience will quickly disperse. If they leave then no lesson has been taught anyway. Sure the guides will tell you to be “good” or they may tell you to do something others consider bad or dangerous, but if there were no one to question your guidance then there would be no choice instilled in your character.

Actors tend to be cliquish and it is entirely possible that we return with other actors we are used to working with to create more new and interesting situations, but at the end of the day we sit down with all of them and share our stories over a beer at a corner pub in the larger reality. Is this so far fetched really? Perhaps this is the very reason that theatre is the oldest and most collaborative art form we have.

The most wonderful aspect of being in this world is that we are the audience and the actor all at the same time. We join with and thus become one with God as we observe this world whether we take the world at face value or realize it is a great entertainment that teaches us not so much as characters (a person living in the world) but as actors advancing in spiritual experiences.

Desire is the fire that burns inside of you to be yourself. No judgment because you will never get where you want to be by making judgments of yourself or anyone else, but once you grasp that concept you can judge all you want…crazy right? I have deep burning desires and I know all too well what its like to have them thwarted by someone else’s opinion or rules or laws. I am the

Quote:



   I too like Shakespeare's idea of considering the physical world as a stage that we all play our part in. Your concept of there needing to be good and bad roles played out to make learning and experiencing here more colorful and entertaining makes sense to me after I learned not to take my role here too seriously; like just before my suicide attempt in 2006.

   I've learned so much since then, in which was almost ruined had God not rescued me from my pure stupidity. That's something I would never even consider trying again as I don't treat God's gift to me lightly. Yes, I like to think of there being an omnipotent being in charge of all creation, but not anymore from the limited Sunday school version of God. The Sant Mat or Shabd Yoga concept is more to my liking.

Quote:



   I suppose that's what keeps us regulars glued to this forum. I like reading your remarks, as well as Beau's remarks and everyone else here. It's like what you said about attuning to PUL (Pure Unconditional Enlightenment, freshly squeezed, not from concentrate:-).

   What you said about "He/She" awareness means a lot to me. That is what I strive for; to have a perfect Yin/Yang balance in my thoughts and decisions. I think I may have an added advantage over others. I bear one of the characteristic marks of someone with chimerism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_%28genetics%29
I would like to be tested for this. Anyway, being at least transgendered, I feel like my thoughts are both male and female like in combination. I used to have a stronger shifting between the two, but now have both under better control.

I'll admit I didn't read the entire OP (it was quite long), but I've heard it said / taught before that existence is just divine play.

I'd argue that existence for most of the human beings who have lived has been what would be called a terrible one from a perspective of a middle class, modern day existence.  Divine play?  As of 2007 there were about 21,000 children dying every day; about 4 every second.  If you want to just count the children dying of preventable diseases/lack of clean water and such it gets even more sad, sick, and tragic.  I don't see these issues as play.  Or if it is play then it is play for a sick and twisted creator who is wholly detached from his creation.  For me, the 'divine play' description of existence does no where near the justice necessary to explain the problem of suffering and the existence of moral and natural evil.

The Shakespeare quote is a good one, but again I'd interpret it as 'all the world and the universe we find ourselves in is simply a setting for a morality play to unfold; we are actors with our own free will and create actions with real significance because we are in an existence imbued with real consequences to actions'.  Not 'people are simply actors with no responsibility for themselves if they are playing an evil part'  (I am aware that evil is a loaded term for a lot of people on this board).

Because I've experienced divine love I figure God knows about love. Therefore, as Pratekya suggested, I don't believe God is like a sick f..k who gets off on watching people suffer.

Going by my experience with divine beings, they really care about our welfare and they aren't a bunch of sadists who get off on watching others suffer.

One doesn't have to be judgmental in order to see that a loving way of being is significantly "SUPERIOR" to an evil way of being.

Just because contrast can help us grow, this doesn't mean that treating others in an unloving way is okay.

Interesting, Beau.

pratekya,
"Lastly, what sick fu*k wants to watch and experience the suffering of others and enjoy it as play?  That wouldn't be god; that would be every sociopath who has ever tortured someone for pleasure."

Whether you entertain a biblical god, a liberal new age god, a disk view or what not, there are horrible actions being made in this world, while there clearly are better options available. As mentioned first, whatever view you entertain, your god or our true beings are capable of events that seem like magic in this world. So, why is is even possible to make shit h*ppen?

recoverer,
"It is important to remember that those who don't live according to the Golden rule cause others to suffer."

I've googled the golden rule and found a lot of versions going around. What's your take on it?

Volu:

I figure the Golden Rule means to treat others as you expect to be treated. Of course, if a person expects to be treated in a negative way then it doesn't apply.

Usetawuz -
  Wow, quite a lot is said in your statement that can be commented on.  Here is my commentary for what it's worth.
Quote:

It sounds like you are writing that there is no such thing as objective evil.  I believe you are arguing that there would be no evil if there was no human commentary on these actions to label it as such.  I disagree wholeheartedly.  Some things are wrong, and I believe that most of humanity would agree with me that irrespective of one's culture, some things are simply wrong inherently, or objectively.  For instance, torturing small children for fun is wrong.  I'd argue that the vast majority of humanity would agree with me on this.  You however, would it seem, argue that torturing small children for fun is wrong simply because society has deemed it such.  I disagree and think that the vast majority of human experience corresponds with my conclusion and not yours.  The only people who would agree with you are relativists.

Quote:

Hmm I'd question what you mean by that and what your logic or evidence is

Quote:

I'd say experience is valuable, but it is not necessary to have negative experiences to have positive learning outcomes - one can learn from positive experiences just as much as negative ones.  If my son learns to keep his crying under control, he can see his friends will more likely want to play with him.  He doesn't need to cry constantly to learn the lesson.
  As many non-theistic philosophers have noted; there seems to be an over abundance of suffering in the world.  At least some of that suffering is unnecessary I'd argue.  I guess to validate your assertion you'd have to show why one cannot learn from a positive experience.

Quote:
I totally disagree, based on the actions of my almost - 3 year old; he is almost completely immature, selfish, and childlike.  Most honest, rational parents would say the same thing.
  Furthermore, if children are old souls already, what's the point of a human experience?  They are already spiritually developed; your assertion seems to be self refuting.

Quote:

I do.  I've been to the emergency room with my son multiple times and a child cannot and does not understand what is going on in a way that an adult can, and their fears can simply overwhelm them that an adult with a rational mind can better handle.  Note I am not claiming that all adults can do this, but most adults can deal with suffering on a better level than a child because they have a mind that can understand what is going on.  The suffering of kids is more primal.  Again, I base this on experience and while you may disagree, if we are honest with ourselves I'd argue that the vast expanse of human experience agrees with my assertion, not yours.

Quote:

I'd agree that there are evolutionary / biological reasons for protecting offspring, but that does not necessarily explain all of our attitudes toward children.  You are committing what's called the genetic fallacy.  It means that just because the origination of an idea can be explained, that cannot be used as justification for dismissing of the idea; the validity or falsity of the idea is completely independent of how it originally came to be.  In short, even if we have a biological incentive to look after children, whether or not we have a moral imperative to look after children is a totally independent idea.

Quote:

That is possible, however it is not an excuse for evil.

In conclusion, I'd argue that your post makes perfect sense if we assume relativism to be true, disregard the irrational suffering of children, believe the genetic fallacy to be true, and make assumptions about the afterlife that pretty much correspond to nothing in the shared common human experience.