Theos-Talk Archives (February 2003 Message tt00253)

Bill, you wrote in part:

"If, when we ask, 'Does God exist?' we mean exist separate from us on 
the physical plane as an objective reality then certainly we may use 
logic to deny the plausibility of such."

But why confine the above comment ONLY to the physical plane?

Does "God" exist SEPARATE from us (as an objective reality?) on some 
higher plane of existence?

Notice what BAG wrote:

"MAHA VISHNU IN NOT WITHIN ANY MATERIAL UNIVERSE. HE IS IN THE 
MAHATATTVA PORTION OF THE SPIRITUAL SKY, AND THE INFINITE NUMBER OF 
FINITE MATERIAL UNIVERSES (LIKE OUR OWN) ARE MANIFEST LIKE BUBBLES 
OUT OF THE 'PORES' OF HISBODY. THESE ARE EMPTY UNTIL HE GLANCES ON 
THEM. HIS GLANCE IS CALLED SHAMBHU,AND THROUGH THIS LOVING GLANCE, HE 
MANIFESTS ALL OF THE FINITE JIVA-SOULS WITHIN EACH FINITE UNIVERSE. 
MAHA VISHNU THEN ENTERS INTO EACH UNIVERSE AS GARBODAKSAYI VISHNU, 
THE SELF-SACRIFICED COSMIC PURUSHA AND THE PARAMATMA 'HOLY SPIRIT', 
LORD OF ALL HEARTS. HE ALSO MANIFESTS HIMSELF AS THE GUNA AVATARAS
BRAHMA, VISHNU AND SHIVA, AND AS INFINITE DIRECT LILA INCARNATIONS AND
'EMPOWERED' SHAKTYAVESHA INCARNATIONS." 

Compare the above by BAG with one of the images he referred readers 
to:

http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/images/bimages/garbod.vishnu.GIF

Should we take what BAG writes in a literal way?

Does Vishnu REALLY look like he is depicted in the above image?

Is "God" really a "male"?

Does he really have a "body" with "pores"?

Bill, you go on to write:

". . . At that location where we fall silent before the ineffable we 
may get an intuitive glimpse of God. Such a glimmer may change our 
consciousness of being such that we sense that God is the source of 
our freedom to ask such questions."

"If Theosophy is reduced to a dogmatic set of beliefs about the 
ineffable, then it is but another religion on the backburner of the 
Universe. Of course this is just my opinion and everyone is free to 
form their own opinion using whatever tools they have."

It's good that you bring up these issues, but what about BAG's views 
about a "personal God" in light of what I just quoted from you? 

Maybe the Vaishnava views expressed by BAG are ALSO "a dogmatic set 
of beliefs about the ineffable."

Yes, I believe in the "ineffable". In fact, I think I 
have "experienced" the "ineffable." But why must one declare that 
the "ineffable" MUST BE a "personal God" as apparently BAG was trying 
to do? He advocated monotheism and (it appeared to me) abhorred 
pantheism. Time and time again he spoke of the PERSONALITY OF GOD OR 
THE GODHEAD but never really explained what he meant by using such 
phraseology. 

I got the impression from what BAG wrote that somehow "God" was 
separate from you or me or the universe. This is dualism, isn't it? 
Please compare Jerry's views on this specfic subject with BAG's.

Written in a hurry so excuse any incompleteness on my part.

Daniel