Is Connection the Fundamental Force of the Universe?

The Western worldview is anthropomorphic and dualistic and individualistic. Our ideas about Ultimate Reality can be problematic. And our ideas about relationships can be problematic, too. However, the Eastern worldview is NOT anthropomorphic or dualistic or individualistic.

I use the neutral term, Ultimate Reality, as a placeholder for the true nature of reality, NOT as a description of a particular speculation about the nature of reality. When I do engage in speculation, I think of the nature of reality as the “ground of being,” NOT as a being. To me, Ultimate Reality is probably NOT personal, possibly NOT supernatural, and perhaps NOT even intentional.

Do We Limit God with Our Assumptions?

Do we assume that Ultimate Reality (what some people call “God”) is a person? Then, do we limit God to a personality or a set of attributes? Do we characterize God as beauty, goodness or truth? How do we characterize those aspects of reality that are NOT beautiful, good or true?

Do we personify “God” as a male? How do we characterize the aspects of reality that are NOT male? So, is it meaningful to talk about the “divine feminine,” as opposed to the “divine masculine”? Perhaps it is only meaningful to reclaim the essential, genderless aspect of reality.

Encyclopedia Britannica defines “sacred” as “the power, being, or realm understood by religious persons to be at the core of existence and to have a transformative effect on their lives and destinies. Other terms, such as holy, divine, transcendent, ultimate being (or ultimate reality), mystery, and perfection (or purity) have been used for this domain.”

Is it meaningful to talk about the “sacred,” as opposed to the “secular”? Are other people sacred? Are other living beings sacred? And are art and music sacred? Is the Earth or the universe sacred? Emperor Marcus Aurelius was a Stoic philosopher. He wrote, “Everything is connected, and the web is holy,” almost 2,000 years ago. Perhaps everything is sacred, and nothing is sacred.

These apparent dualities (personal/impersonal, male/female, sacred/secular) can be helpful ways to think about reality, but they are all concepts that describe reality. They are NOT reality itself. Or perhaps they describe two different aspects of reality, the Absolute realm of essential lack of separation and the relative realm of apparent separation.

So, in Buddhism, we distinguish the finger pointing at the moon from the moon itself. Also, we sometimes use “skillful means,” which are helpful, but imperfect, ways to understand reality.

Can We Say that “God is Love”?

In The Universe is a Green Dragon, cosmologist Brian Swimme suggests that the universe is held together by attraction. Attraction is “gravity” in the literal sense and “love” in the symbolic sense. Similarly, Dr. Julia Mossbridge, a neuroscientist, talked about love on an episode of the Buddha at the Gas Pump podcast.

Mossbridge defines love as “that which connects.” She distinguishes “universal love” from “unconditional love.” In her view, universal love is the connection, the fundamental force of the universe. Unconditional love is the experience of recognizing the connection. I agree that attraction or connection is a fundamental force, and I think that her framework is a good way to explain it.

Many people who have transcendent experiences perceive an aspect of reality that is always present, but seldom seen. Some see the space between things, as well as the things themselves, or the energy that animates the matter and the space, with no distinction between the two. Several people have told me that, in the moment, this energy or space seemed like God to them.

Sometimes, people say that “God is love.” I wrote about that concept here. If we think that God is a person, then this can be problematic. How can a person be a connection or an experience? However, if we think that God is the “ground of being,” NOT a being, then this is NOT problematic. We are merely observing that attraction or connection holds the universe together.

So, the Eastern worldview is NOT anthropomorphic, dualistic or individualistic. Everyone is related, and everything is connected, according to the Eastern religions, the mystics, and the scientists. In the West, we often think about “love” as a conditional, personal relationship. In the East, we often think about “love” as an unconditional, impersonal connection, an essential lack of separation.

How could we ever be separate from God, the Universe or others, if everyone is related and everything is connected? As Hindu sage Ramana Maharshi said, “There are no others.”

Is Love Unconditional?

Mossbridge suggests that much of what we consider “love” is conditional. We may love our family or friends because we are in the same family or community, or because we share similar interests. And we may love our partners or spouses because they are attractive, funny, intelligent, kind or strong. This love can be enduring, heartfelt and meaningful, but it is NOT necessarily unconditional.

These are all examples of conditional love. We “love” someone because of their unique qualities. Would we still love them if they had different qualities or if we were not attracted to their qualities? Mossbridge says that conditional love can be like, “I loved you, but then you did this, and now I’m pissed, and I don’t love you anymore.”

Conditional love does NOT motivate God to “maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” Further, conditional love does NOT motivate us to “love your neighbor as yourself.” We give and receive unconditional love generously, impartially and impersonally, and it is NOT contingent, preferential or transactional.

In The Way, I described how our grandsons taught us about unconditional love. Our love for our grandsons had nothing to do with their appearances, behaviors, personalities, or responses to us. We would have loved them whether they were related to us or not. And we realized that we should love everyone like we love our grandsons.

We might think that personal/conditional love sounds close or warm (and that impersonal/unconditional love sounds cold or distant). Perhaps if our heads were clear and our hearts were pure, conditional love would be close or warm. But, often, we are motivated by biases, expectations and preferences that may NOT be loving.

The Eastern Worldview is NOT Anthropomorphic or Dualistic or Individualistic

When we assume that God is a person or that God is masculine or feminine or that God has certain attributes and NOT others, or that some aspects of reality are sacred and some are secular, then we limit our understanding of God. Instead, we might understand that Ultimate Reality is the ground of being, the fundamental force of the universe that attracts and connects, NOT a being.

If we love conditionally, then we might love in a contingent, preferential or transactional way. Instead, if we love unconditionally, then we might love in a generous, impartial or impersonal way. And as Mossbridge says, we might consider that universal love is the connection, the fundamental force of the universe. And that unconditional love is the experience of recognizing the connection.

Of course, conditional and unconditional love are NOT mutually exclusive. So, we can fall in love with someone because of their qualities and love them unconditionally, too. After almost 5o years, I still appreciate the qualities in my wife that first attracted me. At the same time, our love is unconditional. And I can NOT imagine ever saying, “I’m pissed, and I don’t love you anymore.”

The Western worldview is anthropomorphic and dualistic and individualistic. Our ideas about Ultimate Reality can be problematic. And our ideas about relationships can be problematic, too. However, the Eastern worldview is NOT anthropomorphic or dualistic or individualistic.