Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00725)

November 23, 2002

Re: UNIVERSAL EXPERIENCE by an individual. SEEING GOD

Dear Robert:

I am not seeking to employ any one method or phraseology. And in the
process of writing I employ those analogies (or phrases) that best
express the meaning I seek to convey. I also try to take readers into
account, and may on occasion offer Theosophical doctrines and
reasoning.

Therefore unless we agree that we are studying together and seeking to
discover things together the conversation has not much future.

It is clear that I may have misunderstood your focus. In which case
please readjust it.

In the metaphysical terms I have learned from Theosophy, I have
employed those that best seem to express the undefinable.

I do not know what you mean by "transcendental." I hold that there
are no matters of any level or limit which the free-mind cannot grasp.
Owing to its indissoluble link with the MONAD it finds only the
ABSOLUTE impossible to define. To it, therefore the ABSOLUTE is a
"logical necessity." There cannot be a "personal god."

But then, I also have to include the concept that my mind is directed
by me, as I would a tool, and I am NOT solely the embodied and
temporary mind, that uses the name "Dallas" in this incarnation. The
"real" ME transcends the embodied, lower-mind. Everyone has the same
advantages and parameters of their own making, and it is possible to
determine to change them.

If there is to be any "vision of god" as one might describe it, then
it is the "real ME" that impresses the embodied mind I use in this
personality with the event. I sense that I am now faced with a
choice: Shall I make of this a vision one that I will carry each
moment henceforth into my living? It is clear to me, that my
lower-mind has been strongly impressed by this event: "You and the
ALL, are ONE."

The term "god" has many meanings, none of which are of any fixed
standard. I would agree that no limits of "form, size, area,
substance, or time" can be made to apply. And if used, they only tend
to show what "god' is not. Can we define: perfection, truth, law ?
Can any image of any kind personate these?

I do hold it to be reasonable that there must be some indescribable
"background" that is totally apart from and unaffected by limitations
of any kind. In Theosophy the word ABSOLUTE or ABSOLUTENESS is
employed. The Hindus used the word PARABRAHM or that which is
"beyond" Brahma the manifested.

I do agree that the "manifested" is by that fact "limited." But still
it seems to retain the potential and capacity of visualizing or
apprehending that which is unlimited. "Impossible" would then be
nonsensical. If asked how this is possible I would say that the
"Higher mind" (Buddhi-Manas) is always linked in incarnation with the
"Lower mind" (Kama-Manas). This is how I find it expressed in
Theosophy. The potential "god" is forever locked within the confines
of a form of some kind. [ see KEY TO THEOSOPHY (HPB) 178-184.]

As to direct experience of "god." I would tend to say we do it all
the time, but are not aware of it. In every human (as also in every
manifested 'being,' there is the HIGHER SELF, ATMA) and this is said
to be one with the ABSOLUTE. But, we might pause here, and ask: "Why
are we not aware of it ?

In saying that I think if the ABSOLUTE is unchangeable and truly
universal, then we can no more "escape" its "presence" than we can
escape SPACE.

I would not presume to deny to any one the witnessing of what they
might call "god." But I would also say that such an event, merely
proves the thesis that the "embodied mind" (with all its limitations)
is a "ray" from, and, in essence is "one with" that universal
ABSOLUTENESS.

I would also add that the way in which any individual "sees" such a
personal (yet startling) event, is modified by their situation and
experience. Also, when such events occur, they are reviewed. They
are for our minds (in the here and now), memory. If anything, one
could say that the experiencer is momentarily ONE WITH, and yet,
clearly, it does not lose its unique IDENTITY. One may attempt to
make a record of such events, but proof lies only in the actual
witnessed event and it is "one on ONE."

One could express it this way: The purpose of the UNIVERSE in
manifestation is for the innumerable "rays" (Monads) of the ONE SPIRIT
to undergo, individually and personally, the cooperative and
compassionate experience of coexistence in very department of life.
The process of reincarnation is then a requirement, so that they may
develop in themselves an awareness of their own immortality, and
simultaneously, an awareness of the immortality of all the rest. Any
sense of uniqueness has to be abandoned here. All Monads have
identical potentials and capacities, but they manifest them
individually according to their free choices. This personal endowment
is what we might call character, capacity and genius. It is unique to
each of us and is one of the proofs of reincarnation and the
immortality of the superior SELF.

This being achieved, the question of continued cooperation arises.
Shall they who have such an experience, continue to work in and with
Nature (the Universe) as do the Great Men who may have inspired us,
and whom we might call prophets, Teachers, Builders, Rishis, Mahatmas,
Adepts, Dhyanis, Buddhas, Christs, etc... [ see VOICE OF THE SILENCE
(end), pp. 78-9 ]

Best wishes,

Dallas

================================



-----Original Message-----
From: r
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 5:15 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Theism Can't Honestly Be Dismissed

Dear Dallas,

The first part of your posting (before "As to God") is peripheral (at
best) to the point I'm trying to make. But I'd like to reply to
certain statements in the second part.

>>> If we personalize this concept we dwarf it.

On the contrary, if we depersonalize it we sterilize it. "Dwarf" has
a material connotation that's inappropriate when discussing
transcendental matters (i.e., transcending our notions of physical
space).

>>> In reality it has no "Form." If we give one mentally to IT, we
make it in our mind smaller than the Universe or illimitable SPACE.

Again the terminology connoting material size is inappropriate. But
a more important objection here is that there is a distinction
between an object and our mental image of it. Whatever mental image
of God we have, God is not that, and so God cannot be limited by our
mental constructs.

>>> If we perceive that the DIVINE PRINCIPLE is universal, we admit
that it is everything and cannot be separate from or different from
anything in Nature (the Universe.)

This is an expression of the immanent/transcendent dichotomy, over
which many philosophical battles have been fought. Those who have
seen directly have described God's situation as BOTH immanent and
transcendent simultaneously, in a manner that's probably
inconceivable (at least, I've never been able to conceive of it
satisfactorily). But "inconceivable" is not at all the same
as "impossible."

>>> It is quite fruitless to discuss individual views about "God."
They are the result of self-limited ideas and premises.

Yes, if they're based on speculation. But I'm speaking of direct
experience of God. You may accept or not accept the testimony of
witnesses, but such testimony is categorically different from
speculation.

Robert