APRIL, 2008

A Conversation With...
Rajmohan Ghandi
by Guy Spiro
Mark Anthony Lord
by Guy Spiro
Colette Baron-Reid
by Guy Spiro
Features
The Next Golden Moments Of Now
by Neale Donald Walsch
Decoding the Human Body-Field: The New Science of Information as Medicine
by Peter H. Fraser and Harry Massey, with Joan Parisi Wilcox
What is Acupressure?
by Michael Reed Gach
Prayer
by Robert Ohotto
Map Vs. Territory
by Masaru Kato
Columns
From the Heart
by Alan Cohen
The Healing Funeral
Sound Perspective
by Steven Halpern
Battle of the Sound Healing Conferences—or an Abundance of Options?
Dear Louise
by Louise L. Hay
Green Living
by Sarah Lozanova
Everyday Matters
Seatbelts and Plastic Bags
by Jeanne Spiro
Reviews
In Print
New Books of Interest
Science Fiction & The Art of Storytelling
Formulating Decisions: The Power of Information
by Jacqueline Lichtenberg
Cyberweave: Spirituality and the Internet
by Mary Montgomery-Clifford
The Sequel to The Secret Premiers the Week of April 5th—It’s all about your Soul Path this time
Alternative Realities: Creating the New Mythos
The Oscars and the Network by Stephen Simon, The Movie Mystic

Map vs. Territory

By Masaru Kato


In your spiritual journey, it is quite important for you to be clear about the difference between a certain symbol (the signifier) and what that symbol suggests (the signified). Actually, this is one of the most crucial problems you encounter in the process of shifting your awareness. Before we examine the problem here, let’s clarify the signifier and the signified. For example: Suppose you are planning a car trip from Chicago to Detroit . You look at a map, tracing I-90 to I-94, then Michigan Route 14, and so on. It is an imaginary rehearsal before you actually hit the road. You will not confuse the imaginary trip on the map with actually driving the physical roads. A map is an imaginary representation of physical geography. A map (the signifier) is not an actual territory (the signified).

     When a symbol represents physical, tangible matter as in the above example, the differentiation between the signifier and the signified is easy. It becomes tricky, however, in a spiritual context. The signifier in the spiritual context is what you think God is. It is an idea, a thought, an image, or a belief that God is “xxx” (you can fill in this blank). The signified in spirituality is what the true essence of God is. It is the ultimate reality that is beyond your thoughts and logic. The source of the problem is that both appear behind your eyes. Both dwell in your inward reality; therefore, there is no clear line between them. You often confuse them.

     The best example of this confusion is the way people understand Scripture. Many people believe that any incident described in the Scripture happened actually as stated. We are witnessing groups of people seriously claiming, “Evolution does not exist,” and “the Earth was created in six days.” According to a survey of The Barna Group, 75% of American adults consider Jesus Christ’s birth to the “virgin” Mary as a factual incident.

     They are confusing a map, which is imaginary, with a territory, which is physically real. The words of Scripture are a map of the Divine reality, not the reality itself. They consider this map as real, as if they were physically living in the symbolic world of map.

     In terms of this confusion, I would like to call your attention to the error in assessing how real God is. Many overlook that the Divine reality is different from the reality of territory, which is objectively discernable. The Divine reality is not an objective reality, but an intersubjective reality.

     To a varying degree, most people believe that there is the ultimate source of power and creation, somewhere out there, in an invisible different dimension, which supports every being in the visible physical universe. The source of the power is what we call God, or some other name. If you look at the intrinsic beauty of Mother Nature, you cannot stop believing that there is a deep implicit order that is supporting an explicit reality. The realm of the Divine appears to hold certain substantiality.

     However, it does not stand on the same realness of a physical territory. Contemplate this analogy: Say, your map suggests that Detroit is 280 miles from Chicago . You can confirm it by actually driving the road and seeing the milage meter in your car. If others research it by doing the same thing, they get the same finding. You cannot determine the realness of the Divine in this manner. Say, Matthew 6:14 is saying, “If you do not forgive others, your Father will not forgive your sins.” How do you confirm if this statement is true? You cannot go to Heaven, cannot actually see the Father, and cannot ask Him if He really punishes you. Even if you get an intuitive message from God in this regard, how can you prove it is real?

     The reality of the Divine is confirmed when the subjective spiritual experience is shared by two or more individuals. Many spiritual seekers share similar experiences like seeing the bright white light while they are in an altered state of consciousness. Energy healers like me share with other therapists, say, a tingling sensation inside the body, when activating the life force energy during a healing session.

     The intersubjective reality is not the matter of true or untrue, real or unreal, which are all arguing an objective state of affairs. It is the matter of if each person who touches the Divinity describes his/her experience sincerely without any lie or any prejudice.

     The realness of a physical territory is an objective reality, which is the matter of empirical validity. The realness of the Divine is an intersubjective reality, which is the matter of honesty. The problem is that we mixed them up. When you examine how real a certain thing is, you rely heavily on the objective and scientific criteria. You believe, “When it is objectively true, it is true.” You presuppose that God is true. Then, you conclude that the Divinity must be objectively verifiable. If not, you could not believe that God is real (this is not acceptable for many people). You view God as a territory, which must be objectively evident, although it is not.

     The words of the Scripture are a symbolic representation of the Divinity. It is a map. You believe that the realm of the Divine as being objectively true. You think it is a territory. You are raised and taught that the map precisely describes the territory. Then, you turn to the belief that anything in the Scripture is correct, right, true, and real. As I pointed out in the above, the Divine reality cannot be a territory. Therefore, the Scripture is, I would say, erroneous. You can learn some important lessons or suggestions from it. However, you do not need to believe that it is absolutely true.

     Here, we see a very important point to note. When you try to understand God, you are checking if your idea about God, which is a map, is congruent to the Divine reality, which you believe a territory, but it is not. You cannot compare a map with a territory. Whenever you experience the Divine (e.g., clairvoyant vision, the Light, intuitive inspiration, etc.) through any mode of knowing or higher senses; you experience it within your awareness. Although you feel it objectively real, it is still a subjective perception experienced in your mind. In some sense, the Divine reality is a variation of map, not a territory. Thus, when you try to grasp the Divine, you are actually comparing two maps in your mind: Map A: an idea (yours or someone else’s) about God, and Map B: the Divinity perceived through your higher senses.

     Then, this attempt of comparing Map A and Map B becomes meaningless, because Map B is all you need. Say, you had the thought that skiing was dangerous, thus you avoided skiing. One day, you experienced it and were filled with immense joy. You do not need any cognitive effort to adjust your past prejudice about skiing. You sink into the joy of skiing, and cannot think of anything else. That is all. This is why the Sages warn you not to grasp the Divine, comparing two maps, which is meaningless.

     When I state that the Divine reality is not a territory, but a kind of map, this is not intended to say that the Divine reality is some sort of bogus mistake, or something unreliable, useless, or meaningless. I am saying that the Divinity holds a different realness from the physical reality. When you somehow experience the Divinity, it holds a certain truth in it. That is enough. Again, it is the matter of sincerity and honesty. When you are innocently open to the Divine and you sincerely receive any gift from it, you do not need anything else. You do not need to prove Map B is real. It is not the matter of true or not.

     So, in your spiritual journey, the important questions to ask are not, “Is God real?” “Is my understanding about God correct?” They are the questions of the third person account, starting with “Is it ...?” This type of objective argumentation cannot be applied to the Divine reality, because it is not a territory. The questions you need to seek are, “Do I touch God?” “Am I open to God?” “Am I experiencing God?” They are the questions of the first person account starting with “Am I ...?” or “Do I ...?” You need to sincerely stay focused on your own experience of God without arrogance. Sincerity is a key to touch the Divine: you need to have no judgment, no expectation, and no desire. It is just being with God with a pure clear mind.


Next Article

Return to This Month's Index

Go to the Home Page

All content and articles copyright ©2008 by Lightworks Inc except where noted. All rights reserved.