F. Scott Fitzgerald famously said, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." Whether or not this is true, lately I've found myself holding two opposing ideas in my mind, and I'm not sure there's any good way to resolve them. Both involve a fundamental question, the meaning and purpose of life.
Here's one idea. Life is all about learning to do the right thing. Its ultimate purpose is moral growth, which translates into spiritual growth.
Much evidence can be cited in support of this idea. For instance, the life review in a near-death experience typically entails reliving one's choices and seeing (even feeling) how those choices affected other people, for better or worse. Though condemnation is not part of the life review, there is usually a sense of judgment, in which the NDEr determines which choices were right and which were wrong. The standard of value seems to be the genuine love that one has felt for other people; choices based on sincere love are rated correct, while choices grounded in resentment, envy, hatred, etc. are rated incorrect.
There is also a major tradition in spiritualism stating that some spirits do not develop a sufficient moral sense to advance to the next life, and must remain, at least for a while, in an earthbound state, hovering in a twilight zone between incarnate and discarnate life. These (temporarily) lost souls may impose a malign influence on people on earth, and they often show up as low-level communicators in seances. They seem especially drawn to the Ouija board, which is why casual experimentation with the Ouija is discouraged by many psychically sensitive people.
The idea that good and evil, right and wrong, are an integral part of existence is found in the major Western religions – all the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). The idea of evil or confused spirits is also found in nearly all folk traditions around the world.
So that's one way of looking at it. It seems to make sense, and it is consistent with much of the evidence and with longstanding belief systems.
Now here's another idea. Earthly life is essentially a game – a drama played out by a cosmic Mind. It is, as Roger Ebert reportedly said not long before he died, "an elaborate hoax." God, which is universal Oneness, splits itself into many disparate identities or personas, and these personas are allowed to act out their loves and hatreds, their comedies and tragedies, on the great stage of physical reality – which is only a backdrop, ultimately no more real than the virtual reality environment of a computer game.
The purpose of life, in this scenario, is simply to provide a variety of experiences by which God can know itself. The experiences may be good or bad, ecstatic or painful; it makes no difference. In fact, a certain amount of suffering and tragedy is necessary to ensure maximum diversity and maximum drama. Just as a novel needs a villain, the ongoing earthly spectacle requires villainous behavior in order to maintain interest, test people's limits, and allow for suspense and surprise.
According to this view, there is nothing really good or bad, right or wrong. Life, seen from this perspective, is beyond good and evil. As Jenny Wade puts it in her book Changes of Mind when describing the purportedly highest state of consciousness (called "Unity Consciousness"): "Only correct options exist."
There's a lot to recommend this view also. For one thing, it explains why suffering and pain are so prevalent in life. It can provide the comfort of believing that life's dramas are not to be taken entirely seriously, since the whole show is, in the end, "an elaborate hoax."
And there is some evidence to support it. If we look again at near-death experiences, we see that NDErs often report merging with a pure white light, and that in this state of fusion they feel at one with everything, and they see that everything is perfect and right. All human judgments are rendered irrelevant, merely so much chatter.
People who've had experiences of "cosmic consciousness" (mystical transport) often feel the same way. "All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well," said Julian of Norwich after such an episode.
This perspective seems to be represented in the major Eastern religions and philosophies, which see life as an endless series of rebirths into new narratives, all of which are ultimately illusory. It also seems consistent with Gnostic teachings, and with the teachings of mystics in general, including popular writers like Eckhart Tolle.
Both viewpoints have a lot to offer. The trouble is, they appear to be contradictory, even mutually exclusive.
The first outlook presupposes moral judgment. The second obviates moral judgment.
The first outlook says that the choices made in this life are of vital importance. The second says that all choices are correct; there are no bad options.
The first outlook says that the departed will either graduate to a higher plane or remain earthbound, depending on their degree of spiritual advancement. The second says that all of us are only parts of a greater whole and we will be seamlessly reconstituted with that greater whole upon death.
Is it possible to reconcile these alternatives? Well … maybe. It could be argued that each position contains part of the truth. Here's one possible way of harmonizing these scenarios.
Let's say that physical reality is indeed an elaborate hoax, a kind of game in which good and bad personas are arrayed against each other to provide drama and conflict. In such a game, bad people and bad choices are clearly necessary. But arguably it does not follow that bad choices are cost-free.
Maybe the game was set up in the knowledge that circumstances and free will would inevitably conspire to make some players behave in destructive and malicious ways. This behavior would lead to considerable pain and suffering, but this was not a problem for the game's designer, who has always been more concerned about the learning opportunities the game affords.
The near-death experience allows the players to detach themselves from the game. From this vantage point (fusion with the white light) they can see that it is a charade, and that pain and suffering do not matter. That is part of the truth. But the NDE also allows the players to undergo a life review. In this experience they learn about the right and wrong choices they made in playing the game – and while the game itself is not important, those choices are important, because they reflect the growth and development of the soul.
In other words, while the game isn't to be taken seriously in itself, the choices made while playing the game are of more lasting consequence, and can affect one's immediate postmortem fate, with players who failed to learn the appropriate lessons being suspended between earth and heaven for a time, unable to advance.
With this compromise position in mind, let's reassess the claims made by each side.
Life is all about learning to do the right thing. Its ultimate purpose is moral growth, which translates into spiritual growth. This would be true.
The standard of value is the genuine love that one has felt for other people; choices based on sincere love are rated correct, while choices grounded in resentment, envy, hatred, etc. are rated incorrect. True.
Some spirits do not develop a sufficient moral sense to advance to the next life, and must remain, at least for a while, in an earthbound state. True.
Earthly life is essentially a game – a drama played out by a cosmic Mind, "an elaborate hoax." True.
The purpose of life is simply to provide a variety of experiences by which God can know itself. Not quite true, since the deeper purpose is spiritual training and advancement; however, true in the sense that God (spirit) does get to "know itself" only via this training.
The experiences may be good or bad, ecstatic or painful; it makes no difference. True in the sense that earthly suffering is too ephemeral to matter in the long run; but misleading if it suggests that moral choices don't matter.
There is nothing really good or bad, right or wrong. Life is beyond good and evil. "Only correct options exist." True from the perspective of a spectator observing the drama; not true for the player, who faces a real, and meaningful, test of character with every important moral choice.
Maybe this is a way of reconciling the two opposing paradigms. But I'm not convinced. To me, it's not really satisfactory. It's not as neat and clear-cut as either of the paradigms individually. It lacks the elegant simplicity of either approach, though it does seem to include more of the data.
In the end, I'm not sure quite how to combine these opposing ideas. The solution to the problem is probably both simpler and less obvious than the clumsy jerry-built answer I've come up with. What it is, I can't say.