Theos-Talk Archives (February 2003 Message tt00312)

Hi. The subject of a personal God is very interesting. One would not want
to take another person's God away from him, but, in a setting like this, one
would hope that people come here to enquire and discover.

What Bag has said about the pores of God, I found sort of interesting when I
first read it. I read someplace that the original apple that Adam gave to
Eve had been mistranslated and was not an apple, but most likely a
pomegranate, and. for some reason, this brought that to mind. and also, the
saying of Jesus in the New Testament, "My Father's house has many mansions."
The word, "SHAMBHU" is also interesting. It is often very
easy to correlate a lot of these roots to english meanings in ways
that may not always be completely accurate, but often can convey a sense of
something. Sham-b-hu. In english, sham means illusion and hue means a
manifestation of the color ray. I think it is easy to figure out the
quality the symbol "b" conveys by looking at "b" in other words.

But all of this is, in a sense, irrelevant, as any organic religion is
designed to be fully understood only by participating in it, as it is
structured in such a way that grasping the inner meaning always brings one
into a closer correlation to physical reality (a more balanced functioning
as a physicality) and an eventual dropping of a literal understanding of the
various symbolism . By participation, this is revealed to each individual in
a way in which he can assimilate it into his whole functioning, at his own
pace, so that his functioning eventually becomes more harmonized. These
religions are also designed to serve large masses of people so that society
is regulated, but, only a very few people who are educated enough to
understand symbolism will ever be able become liberated by ceasing to cling
to the illusion that the meaning exists independently of
their own interpretation of it.

What good or harm have these religions done? Is it even possible to
evaluate this, and does it serve any purpose to do so? In my personal
opinion, it is the time on earth for humanity to leave religion behind, as
science and the humanities have begun to converge in a way which has the
potential to solve problems for people better than religion is able to, but
tell this to a Roman Catholic in South America or Italy, to a born-again
Christian or Mormon in America, to a Hindu in India or a radical Muslim in
Pakistan. Therefore, as people tend to turn any religion into dogma which
can lead to war and great suffering, as well as much general confusion and
disorder, it is important to work to establish the causes and conditions
where a universal brotherhood can flower, and in the doing of this, time of
of the essence.

Is it not agreed that when a individual comes and tries to share his
individual religion with others, realistically speaking, there is no way
anyone is going to fully understand another's religion unless he himself
become fully absorbed in it, IT SIMPLY TAKES TOO LONG, and also, there are
better things to do that involve direct humanitarianism. Bag is one of very
many people who really do not see this, as he does not have a realistic
SENSE OF TIME. He feels something very deeply and wants to share it, which
is understandable, but FEELING IS DIFFERENT FROM DOING. He is confusing the
MEMORY (THOUGHT) of what he has previously FELT with MAKING. This is SCREWED
UP. Try to understand these words, because this is why there is probably
going to be a war in Iraq, though I hope not. Many people, way back when,
did not DO something or other CONSCIOUSLY, the not-doing of which led to
great disorder, which was built upon, and now they are trying to correct
this in a way which is also disorderly. Such is the nature of the be-as-t, a
correlation that is s-table, in that it refers back to an arbitrary
intersection as a base and can therefore never be fully creative and
original. The unconscious aim of the beast is to replicate itself by NOT
transmuting the seed, as the transmution of the seed is the death will lead
to his own death. I will finish this another time. 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/
>
>