If we are divine beings/of-god, engineering situations in this world that enable us to experience the tastes we are after, for me that status would seem at odds with anything ever happening against our will. After all, the very notion of expression of divinity, be it collectively or individually, suggests that we are always willing and eager participants.
Yet what about the aggressor/victim scenario? Can that be true that the real situation is one of a chosen role play from both sides … the setting of a stage that facilitates something that all the participants are after individually? In other words, that nothing is actually against anyone’s will?
But when I step down from my armchair – to consider real-life aggressor/victim situations, for example the rapists/murderers etc. and their victims – my gut finds it inconceivable that those victims are willing participants on any level at all.
So where does that leave me with the idea of our divinity? It seems I am faced with a choice of thinking the unthinkable or completely rethinking my base proposition (that we are divine beings engineering situations in this world that enable us to experience the tastes we are after).
On the other hand I find the more traditional punishment or ‘bad’ karma explanations of suffering in this world unsatisfactory. Unsatisfactory in that they don’t seem consistent with my personal belief in an all powerful benevolent God, what to speak of with the notion of our own divinity/of-God identity. Yet at the same time my whole being resists the idea that the various sufferings one experiences during life are there only because we want them … or at least they are there because they profide a backdrop against which we can experience something we are after.
Back in the comfort of my armchair I wonder if by focusing on our oneness rather than individuality the problem might take on a whole different light … or perhaps even disappear altogether. Imagine if the aggressor was also the victim, perhaps like the flip sides of the same coin … what would that mean for our dilemma?
Normal logic would demand that it if we are one then we cannot also be different from each other at the same time. But what if our type of oneness and individuality (difference) did not follow this logic? What if they were both simultaneously true? In other words, that I am different from you does not mean that I am also not one with you? Could we end up thinking along the lines of the part of me that is you wants to facilitate the taste you wish to experience as an aggressor? Oneness to the rescue?
Otherwise, assuming that we wish to maintain the notion of an all powerful benevolent God, and idea of our own divinity/of-God identity, how do we explain the against-my-will situation?