Life

What's Life all about?

The answer to that question is, I believe, quite simple. Who knows for sure? That’s right – who knows for sure? And let me tell you, anyone who says they have ‘all the answers’ to ‘all the questions' about 'the meaning of life’ is, in my opinion, at best deluded and at worst disingenuous. 

As you may have guessed by surfing through this website, I like to read a lot about the lives of people who are esteemed to be significant conveyers of spiritual teaching. Many of the authors who write about these people offer convincing arguments about what the teachers in question were like and what they were seeking to say. Some writers are even quite dogmatic about such issues. And then there are other erudite writers who offer convincing arguments that sometimes portray very different pictures about the people they’re writing about and the ‘meaning of life’ that they say the subjects were teaching.

Consider this: every now and again I like to visit art galleries. Maybe you’ve even been inside an art gallery yourself too, or seen one on TV? Sometimes they’ll show you a painting and name the artist saying something like: ‘He had a particular flair for painting the English countryside’. And you’d be right in concluding that the painting was a reasonable representation of a certain place in the English countryside at the time the artist painted it. Maybe 1786, for instance. Of course, it’s quite likely that the painting is not 100% accurate (for instance it will be considerably smaller than the original object of the painter’s attention and two dimensional in most cases) and it will contain significant elements which reflect what the artist was trying to achieve (meaning he was ‘altering reality’ in order to introduce something to the situation that was important to him) through his work. Maybe by using a particular colour scheme? Or with a certain emphasis on proportion or experimental ways of presenting the situation through the lens of new paints and acrylics, etc? Anything which occurs of this nature would have a significant effect on the finished product and its relationship to the original object, of which it is, ultimately, a filtered representation.

Of course, it's quite possible that while wandering around an art gallery you might find on display other paintings by other, equally competent artists, of, say, the snow-capped Alps, the Mojave Desert, a pacific island, or the Amazonian jungle. (All reflecting each artist’s interpretation of each landscape – and you would appreciate they they’d each captured something of the original scenario.) But consider this: it would be equally understandable if someone who’d lived a very isolated life and who therefore did not know that such diverse places existed on our planet, upon seeing such works of art were to conclude that they were not representative of any true locations on the Earth, at any specific time(s) in our history. However, anyone ‘in the know’ would understand that all of the aforementioned paintings were all reasonably accurate representations of a particular moment in time, as captured through the lens of the artist who created each work of art. Which means that our world is quite diverse and that all of the paintings are reasonably accurate representations of the Earth – but they’re also very different! With this in mind, it could be argued that art (albeit itself a less than real representation of something that once existed) is more accurate in conveying its ‘message’ than is the process of the transference of the written word, through the ages. Because a picture exists as it does (captured in time) for centuries or more, as a finished work of art (and a sculpture can last for millennia) whereas the written word requires its reproduction and transmission through centuries, by many such ‘artists’ who all have their own lens through which they transcribe and transmit the work they’re conveying. Which means that there is the possibility that the mores and standards of any given writer, living at any moment in time, will influence to a lesser or greater degree the route of transmission of the message, and the society in which the scribe lives (along with its cultural ‘mood’) will influence the integrity of the message that’s projected also. Have you ever had a photocopy, of a photocopy, of a photocopy of something? Not exactly the same as the original was it?

So, when someone says that ‘the meaning of life is…’ this or that, especially if they say it dogmatically, well, as far as I’m concerned, my personal ‘radar’ sets off ‘alarm bells’ and I listen to what they have to say with a healthy degree of caution. (Just as I’ll maintain a healthy amount of scepticism about information which is presented to me by someone who is an avowed sceptic. It’s clear they have a vested interest in their sceptical point of view.)

So, in my personal opinion, no one alive today can know for sure ‘all of the answers’ to ‘all of the questions’. Anyone who says otherwise is…well you can figure that out for yourself.

So having said that, where does this leave us? Well, while we could, if we wanted to, debate about exactly what the ‘Historical Jesus’ was ‘really like’, or whether the ‘Virgin Birth’ is an allegory or a fact, or whether Guru Nanak actually travelled to everywhere tradition says he did… and we can even wonder whether Mohammed was taken to Jerusalem in the body or in spirit, there is nevertheless something which is clearly common to all of these people, a divine thread, so to speak, that runs through the work and lives of these individuals (and people like them) about which there is no doubt. They sought to convey their experience of a better way of living. A way that was in harmony with Spirit. A way that extolled humanitarianism, compassion, kindness and reconciliation. And while there may or may not (ultimately) be differences in the printed words that have reached us today, to the extent that we might sometimes wonder whether everything that’s been recorded as having been spoken by such luminaries is a verbatim representation of what was actually said at the time, this question is, in the end, in some ways, a moot point. Because paradoxically, just as a painting may not be 100% accurate, nevertheless, when thousands of artists seek to paint the same landscape and when they all produce something that’s different ‘here and there’, yet considerably similar overall, you can be sure that if you then ventured to the place that they’d all based their work upon you’d know that you’d arrived because you would have seen so many representations of the location that, give or take a little, you’d have learned enough to get the gist of what they were showing you. Now while you might not choose to follow any particular artist slavishly, perhaps as a result of intelligently concluding that not everything that he or she produced was a complete and accurate representation of an original landscape, you might still favour one or other’s overall point of view. You would also quite likely conclude that having taken the time to wisely consider various representations from a number of complementary points of view that you have now informed yourself sufficiently about such matters to the degree that you're in a position to competently make up your own mind regarding which representation you favour, while understanding that there’s something of the original in them all. Once you’d done that you could then begin to explain to the person who’d lived a sheltered life and who did not appreciate the rich and diverse tapestry of planet Earth how all of the paintings on display, including the English countryside, the Alps, the desert and the pacific island all relate to each other and are, in reality, all parts of the same Great Picture. You might explain to the person you're sharing your insights with that while they might not learn ‘everything’ there is to know about our planet from one or even all of the paintings on display, they would however, get a pretty good idea of what the wider world is like in general, and when viewing multiple interpretations of the same landscape, you might add, a person can gather evidence that includes specificity.

It’s quite likely that this principle is equally valid when considering spiritual questions too.  

So, in answer to our question: 'What’s life all about?', perhaps now you have a clearer picture?

(c) Kerin Webb 2006-2010.