Paradox and Confusion

I like to think that if my personal problems were resolved, I mean the kind that is totally internal due to my own beliefs and values, then I would be in a better position to know the right thing to do regarding assisting other people in their "real" needs.

For example, we know there are millions of people dying from starvation. For many others, this is a stark tragedy that should be rectified by all those who are not starving and have something to share. For people like me that means giving time and/or money to the cause. But suppose that after all the time and money I and others put in on such a cause we find that people are still dying of starvation (maybe even the ones we thought we saved). Have we solved the problem or just swept the dirt into a new corner?

Let's suppose that instead of me scurrying around trying to "fix" someone else's problem, whether it be starvation or war or even some heinous crime, that I get in touch with what it is in me that agonizes me when I "see" such an act "out there". With my emotions cleared about such matters, would I be in a better state to "see" the nature of the "problem" and then to know my part in a "solution"?

Would it not be possible that after the dust settles we would all see that no matter what the problem, we (the ones embroiled in the problem) participated in its creation and longevity? This participation could be active or passive.

Regardless of the kind of participation, if any one person has the insight to understand the nature of the problem, might that person also be able to find the resources necessary to resolve the problem?

Was Christ that kind of person?

I am reminded that Satya Sai Baba (reputed to have the same powers as Christ) was asked why he allowed war, famine, and such to continue if he truly had the power attributed to him. His answer: "I did not create war. You did. I cannot undo what you have created. Only you can."

Similar to what Christ said, is it not?

Does this then mean that individually we can do nothing materially to resolve what we "see" as a problem "out there" as long as we hold that the problem is "out there"? I think so. I think we have to resolve the problems internally first.

There are only two ways to fight a fire. If you don't fuel the fire, it burns itself out. If you remove some fuel from the fire, you have assisted in its early demise. Christ went about doing just that - removing fuel from the fire by converting people from their beliefs in such matters. But in one way, that created a new fire: the persecution of Christians. And in the manner in which Christ was tried and crucified the future of Christians was foretold. What's wrong with this picture? Is it a story of Christ or is it a symbolism of Man's nature? Accepting it as a symbolism of Man's nature, is there anything that can gleaned from it that would turn our heads from creating new problems to resolving all problems? If it is just a story of Christ, then are we doomed to recreate that history over and over again?

I prefer to "see" the Bible as a symbolism of Man's nature. Christ was an example of one aspect of Man. But if we strive to live in the manner described in the Bible that was depicted of Christ, then we are setting ourselves up for persecution from others. Paradox? Or simply missing the point? I read somewhere (or it is my own imagination) that the gates of Heaven are guarded by two Gargoyles, Paradox and Confusion. Somewhere else I read that the only way past these Gargolyes is to resolve those issues within oneself. Hmmm. Have I come full circle?

Lately I have been involved in two activities that seem, for me, to resolve both paradox and confusion. These are "A Course In Miracles" (ACIM) and "The Work". ACIM declares that all problems are the result of separation and the only solution is joining. These acts are strictly internal and can only be treated internally. "The Work" provides a method for cutting through the shield we put up that protects our beliefs in separation, thereby allowing joining. The philosophy of ACIM resolves the paradox. "The Work" resolves the confusion.

I found my solution. But there are times when it appears that I am fanning new fires by sharing my solution with others. People by and large do not like the sound of that solution - just as they did not like Christ's solution. Hmmm. History does repeat itself when we do the things so well depicted in the Bible as being of Man's nature.

I think I like the Sufi approach to "enlightenment" is best. The student must seek the teacher rather than the teacher advertising for students. Who was it that said, "Seek and ye shall find."

I can carry the "tools" of ACIM and "The Work" with me, applying them as appropriate - on myself. Others may find tools that work for them that are completely different than mine. One set of tools is not better than another if the result is the same: God's Peace (the Peace of Love.)

I would like to explain the reference to the Gargoyles guarding the gates of Heaven.

In Corinthians (in the Bible) you will find: "God is not the author of confusion". If God is not the author of confusion, then it follows that He did not create it. And if He did not create it, it can't be real, for nothing real exists that God did not create (an assumption that cannot be proven right nor wrong, but upon which I base my work. And for the record, this can be found in "A Course In Miracles"). This can be extended to other constructs like "paradox", "evil", and to emotions known well to Man but not to God. And even this is in an interpretation, for how are we to know the mind of God save what is written in what we declare is the Word of God? In my view, we can "know" by insight or intuition, or what some may call "revelation". It should be easy enough to detect from this statement that I do not believe that revelations are limited only to historical figures of Holy works (referencing here the Prophet Mohammed and/or the disciple Peter). But this just might be me crying out for equal rights. My interpretations are either revelations or they are fantasies. Only God can rightly judge this. If my interpretations lead me to a safe place, then for me it has worked.

So if in my interpretation I "see" two "gargoyles" Paradox and Confusion "guarding" the "gates of Heaven", what I see is what is in our own minds that prevent us from knowing the Kingdom of Heaven as Jesus knows it. One of many paradoxes is that we live in a physical world with plenty of evidence of its existence and we are told of a spiritual world and have no direct measurable material evidence of its existence. One of many confusions is that we feel that something cannot exist without direct measuarble material evidence of it, yet we "blindly" accept, on faith, that the "something" does exist if only because some highly believable person says it exists. People frequently associate "confusion" with "paradox" and think they are one and the same. A paradox is seeing something that your senses tell you cannot be there. Confusion comes in when you try to make sense of it. Intuitively one can "sense" the "presence" of Heaven. How many people can explain it?

Take my word for it if you will. It (Heaven) does exist, and it is the only thing that is "real". The gargoyles guarding the entrance to Heaven also exist - in our minds. And once you discover how to know that the gargoyles are not real, Heaven becomes more real than this Earth.