Theos-Talk Archives (February 2003 Message tt00260)

Here is a brief comment in response to a very interesting message. It has
been hard for me to come to the understanding that anything, however
subtle, that can be experienced in any way by the human body is a form of
materiality. It is very difficult to grasp the "substance" of this, but, in
my opinion, it is literally the KEY TO EVERYTHING. A good way to look at the
unknown is as a zero, but it is important to understand this is a symbol for
a combination of MATERIALS that will lead to an alighnment with other
MATERIALS by the releasing of certain other MATERIALS in such a way as to
create a
CORRESPONDENCE OF MATERIALS that has not yet been experienced. Therefore,
the unknown can be equated only to the experiencing of the perceptual field
but without interpretation of any kind, as the perceptual field, without a
perceiver of it or a perceiver without a perceptual field is an artificial
concept, and we always want to relate anything and everything back to the
body, which is a base, so that "God is in his heaven. All's right with the
world," as when a man CONSCIOUSLY sees himself in such a way that the body
becomes an OBJECT, there is a replication of that body in such a way that a
pure monad is manifested, which is a unit (hue-knit) man makes of himself.
This is an act of conscious creation by which man and "God," which is a
symbol for light striking the earth, coincide, and, in this way, there can
be heaven on earth.

Also, it occurs to me that the "absolute" IS EMANATING on this list in the
form of the perception of the perceptual field, .(the computer screen with
figures on it, ones hands typing, and the surrounding visual and audio, etc.
area) by any member who is CONSCIOUSLY perceiving such, and that between
this CONSCIOUS perception, which includes a previous understanding of the
symbols on the screen and the surrounding objects in that I know the meaning
of a certain word, that my hands are my hands, or that the window is a
window, and what does not "know" this, but only perceives it as a sounding b
oard, a third force can be created which is a certain kind of EMANATION,,
but in order for this force to be manifested, something needs to become
active in relationship to something that is passive. This is a sacred
combination, which does not mechanically happen by itself. An "I" need to
make it happen. But what is "I"? Is it a thought? Is it a feeling? Is it
the person who perceives himself to just have been insulted? Is it that
which perceives itself to be "immortal" and talks about it? The latter is
an interesting question, as it becomes apparent that to talk in this way is
a form of robbing from Peter to pay Paul..This is why we would want to
establish a ROLL-OVER in the form of a conscious community, in which each
member actively strives to contribute to creating the conditions in which
which every other member can actualize his full potential to develop, which
is his birthright. This rollover is a way of BEING by which every act is
dedicated and every breath is consecrated to combining "this" with "that",
whatever this or that may be, for the good of every other member. In order
to effect this kind of roll-over, KNOWLEDGE is required about how to combine
this with that, which knowledge is not the same as an intellectualization,
but is acquired from hands on experience of an impartial recording of
physical reality that does not involve interpretation.

Hope this didn't go too far off the subject, but Daniel's message really
inspired me. Sincerely, Wry

----- Original Message -----
From: <inquire@blavatskyarchives.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 4:07 PM
Subject: Theos-World Re: "Location of God" and other issues dealing with
theism, etc.


> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>