There is an episode of The West Wing where President Jed Bartlet was mad at God and went into a cathedral and smoked a cigarette and put the butt out on the floor and walked out. I think it was related to his having MS.
There is also an episode of St. Elsewhere that is very similar in which Chief of Surgery Mark Craig, distraught at Christmas time over the death of his only son who would have been his family’s heir, stands outside a church in which a midnight Christmas mass is being held. Angry at God, instead of walking into the church, he gazes in for a moment from outside and then turns away and keeps walking.
Granted both of these episodes may have been written by Jews, but what is sad about this apparent archetype of the super-achieving, apex man being pissed off at God is it’s limitation.
I’ve always had a saying: The most limiting thing about any person, people, or culture is their highest concept.
In the East there is another concept which might be appropriate but which is sadly lacking from Western culture, or at least the Jewish projection through it. It is the archetype of the lone warrior/monk, who has reached a level so high that he is transcendent.
It’s sad that that archetype of the transcendent warrior/monk is missing. That archetype – laid down by Shakyamuni Buddha and others – is a very profound concept related to the evolution of the human soul to where after profound achievement it reaches a level of transcendence. This archetype also manifested in samurai culture, where a retired general of the warrior class or perhaps his widowed wife at the end of her lifetime would renounce the world and take their vows.
In that culture, the path of transcendence is always there in the background. Their participation in the struggles of the material world always takes place with an awareness of the grander scheme of things, and if or when such a time comes, they are prepared to take that step of transcendence beyond the material to reach a higher plane.
That transcendence of the warrior/monk casts a light back on all of existence. It is not a rejection of the material – it is a guiding principle that reflects back on and gives meaning to everything that comes before it. It is an embodiment of cosmic truth, its manifestation at the top of the human plane.
Without that ultimate transcendence, everything else before it loses meaning. Transcendence doesn’t take away meaning from existence, it is what ultimately gives it. It is not a nihilistic rejection of matter, it is its ultimate logos.
That the apex characters in these two dramas both reach that moment where they could have transcended, but instead their situation manifested as being angry with God, is sad. It is the difference between the apex man of a culture literally being like a priest rather than just another common man.
One sees this in the real world also. For example there are podcaster-type people who in a way become leaders. By standing up for issues and giving voice to concerns of many thousands or even millions of people, they are in a position of leadership. But rather than choosing the path of transcendence, rather than choosing the role of being actual priests or leaders who lead to a transcendence, they cop out and end up being like the angry, discontented child who is mad at God.
Our society fails in this because there is a lack of healthy role models at the top, and of course individuals fail to achieve this state because of fear and ignorance. If people were clear, they would see the illuminated path of transcendence before them and recognize it.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.