A devotee's definition of God
jo...@ix.netcom.com
God and His relationship to creation. We couldn't be
further apart on this issue and there is little chance to
find agreement within the discussion as it is currently
framed.
Rather than continuing on a seesaw of tenet, rebuttal, and
defense, I'm just going to lay it out as I see and let
the reader decide which view is more adequate.
It is rather simple actually. There is a manifest and an
unmanifest universe. God exists as both. The manifest is
the world of name and form, what I usually refer to as
Maya. The unmanifest universe is simply the Self, the
source of all being, henceforth referred to as Brahman.
I regard the manifest universe as my Mother. I call Her
Kali. She is also my Lover, but that's a whole different
sack of potatoes.
So anyway, everything and anything that exists in the
realm of name and form exists within the realm of Maya.
This includes all beings high and low across any and
all planes both physical, astral, causal, etc.
In the unmanifest universe there is one "thing" and
one "thing" only, pure being, or Brahman. It actually
isn't a thing at all but we must call it such if we
are going to refer to It using words.
So, what's the relationship between the manifest and
unmanifest? Shakti! Shakti is the manifesting principle.
You can consider the manifest universe as the product of
the sex act between Brahman and Shakti. They are always
"doing" it and so as a result we have a universe to exist
and argue about.
I believe Kenneth would consider Brahman to be the same
being he is calling God, and Maya to be the opposite of
God. In a way this is true. However, the thing that's
missing from Kenneth's view is Shakti. It is Shakti
that connects the transcendent God with His creation,
at least this is my understanding. You are all welcome
to throw it over the fence. ;)
--jodyr.
[kenneth]
>I believe Kenneth would consider Brahman to be the same
>being he is calling God, and Maya to be the opposite of
>God. In a way this is true. However, the thing that's
>missing from Kenneth's view is Shakti. It is Shakti
>that connects the transcendent God with His creation,
>at least this is my understanding. You are all welcome
>to throw it over the fence. ;)
You are correct. I would say that Brahman is God. And I agree that maya
is illusion, the opposite to God.
Do we agree we are the maya? The illusion?
I would say that if I define Shakti as the Holy Spirit, then we agree on
the main players in our drama. Because the function of the Holy Spirit
is to gently and lovingly return us to God. The go-between if you like.
We seem to disagree in the method of creation of maya, and the results
of it. And possibly the return to God, and then the aspect of hell,
death, punishment etc.
So no, I do not throw it over the fence.
Kenneth
jo...@ix.netcom.com
>
> On Thu, 13 May 1999 23:28:40 -0700, jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >I believe Kenneth would consider Brahman to be the same
> >being he is calling God, and Maya to be the opposite of
> >God. In a way this is true. However, the thing that's
> >missing from Kenneth's view is Shakti. It is Shakti
> >that connects the transcendent God with His creation,
> >at least this is my understanding. You are all welcome
> >to throw it over the fence. ;)
>
> You are correct. I would say that Brahman is God. And I agree that maya
> is illusion, the opposite to God.
>
> Do we agree we are the maya? The illusion?
We are Brahman projected into Maya. We are pure being having individual
human experiences. The illusion is that we end at our ideas of 'me'.
In fact we simply don't end at all.
But does this mean that Maya somehow doesn't exist? No. If you are a
hermit living in the Himalayas, and you've been blessed to have lost
every and all traces of ego, if there is an earthquake in the cave you
live in, you are going to die. You have just been affected by the
apparent reality of Maya.
Now of course the Self doesn't *really* die, but the apparent body that
housed the jiva does. The point is that there is a "reality" to Maya.
It's as unavoidable as that freeway traffic under the overpass.
> I would say that if I define Shakti as the Holy Spirit, then we agree on
> the main players in our drama. Because the function of the Holy Spirit
> is to gently and lovingly return us to God. The go-between if you like.
Well, Shakti is a little bit more intense. She can be *very* gentle, and
She can be a 9.9 earthquake. Sometimes She shakes you down and stretches
you to the limit, but She'll only put out as much as you can take. The
thing is, sometimes it's more than you'd ever *want* to take.
> We seem to disagree in the method of creation of maya, and the results
> of it. And possibly the return to God, and then the aspect of hell,
> death, punishment etc.
>
> So no, I do not throw it over the fence.
Cool. While we are still in some major disagreement, it is more on the
side of detail than principle.
We choose our worldviews and then apply them to our practice. If we are
sincere in our application then we *will* be successful, even while the
worldviews chosen can be wildly divergent.
> Kenneth
>
> iam...@globalnet.co.uk
:)
--jodyr.
[kenneth]
>It is rather simple actually. There is a manifest and an
>unmanifest universe. God exists as both. The manifest is
>the world of name and form, what I usually refer to as
>Maya. The unmanifest universe is simply the Self, the
>source of all being, henceforth referred to as Brahman.
You are looking at this from the viewpoint of us earthlings.
God actually is the manifest, and us the unmanifest. or: God is Real, we
are maya. Not real.
When you experience enlightenment, you are aware only of God, and His
attributes. This is the Manifest Form of God. Not unmanifest as you
suggest.
In this state of enlightenment, you are not aware of the earth or the
body. Therefore the earth and body are unmanifest. Illusion. Maya. Not
manifest as you suggest.
Remember, our true form is that of creation in God's image. Not
humanities form.
>I regard the manifest universe as my Mother. I call Her
>Kali.
Interesting. You tend to have a problem in referring to, or speaking,
the word 'God'. You call Him Brahman. And you deny God even further by
calling Him Mother/Kali.
It is not important what sex God is, as God is sexless. But western
tradition calls God 'Him', and the Sonship 'him' as well.
Just curious that's all. ;)
>She is also my Lover, but that's a whole different
>sack of potatoes.
>
>So anyway, everything and anything that exists in the
>realm of name and form exists within the realm of Maya.
>This includes all beings high and low across any and
>all planes both physical, astral, causal, etc.
>
>In the unmanifest universe there is one "thing" and
>one "thing" only, pure being, or Brahman. It actually
>isn't a thing at all but we must call it such if we
>are going to refer to It using words.
>
>So, what's the relationship between the manifest and
>unmanifest? Shakti! Shakti is the manifesting principle.
>You can consider the manifest universe as the product of
>the sex act between Brahman and Shakti. They are always
>"doing" it and so as a result we have a universe to exist
>and argue about.
>
>I believe Kenneth would consider Brahman to be the same
>being he is calling God, and Maya to be the opposite of
>God. In a way this is true. However, the thing that's
>missing from Kenneth's view is Shakti. It is Shakti
>that connects the transcendent God with His creation,
>at least this is my understanding. You are all welcome
>to throw it over the fence. ;)
>
>--jodyr.
Kenneth
jo...@ix.netcom.com
>
> On Thu, 13 May 1999 23:28:40 -0700, jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >It is rather simple actually. There is a manifest and an
> >unmanifest universe. God exists as both. The manifest is
> >the world of name and form, what I usually refer to as
> >Maya. The unmanifest universe is simply the Self, the
> >source of all being, henceforth referred to as Brahman.
>
> You are looking at this from the viewpoint of us earthlings.
>
> God actually is the manifest, and us the unmanifest. or: God is Real, we
> are maya. Not real.
This is untenable. Until we are realized, we only have our
viewpoints as individuals to rely upon for our basis of understanding.
After we are realized, we find that the world remains the world.
What changes is our perception of *ourselves*, not our perception
of the world. I have direct communication with 4 individuals who
are certainly realized and they all agree with the above.
> When you experience enlightenment, you are aware only of God, and His
> attributes. This is the Manifest Form of God. Not unmanifest as you
> suggest.
Do you know this from direct experience, or have you created (or
adopted) an expectation of what enlightenment is?
> In this state of enlightenment, you are not aware of the earth or the
> body. Therefore the earth and body are unmanifest. Illusion. Maya. Not
> manifest as you suggest.
Again, do you know this for experiential fact? As stated above, I know
personally at least 4 individuals who are in a state of *permanent*
enlightenment. *None* of them would agree with you as to what the state
entails. Now you can suggest that they have not reached the *final*
stage, however, until you have done the same you are guilty of some
seriously wishful thinking.
> Remember, our true form is that of creation in God's image. Not
> humanities form.
You've taken this "God's image" thing a bit too far I think.
We *are* God made manifest in the world as individuals. The
bummer is that the process of becoming in the world obliterates
any direct perception of this, which is why we're all looking.
> >I regard the manifest universe as my Mother. I call Her
> >Kali.
>
> Interesting. You tend to have a problem in referring to, or speaking,
> the word 'God'. You call Him Brahman. And you deny God even further by
> calling Him Mother/Kali.
I deny nothing. God *is* my Mother and my Father and my Lover.
I'm heterosexual and so I prefer my partners to be Female.
> It is not important what sex God is, as God is sexless. But western
> tradition calls God 'Him', and the Sonship 'him' as well.
What the Western tradition holds holds *nothing* for me. In fact I
couldn't give a rat's ass about it.
This isn't to say that it's not all good. If you are sincere in the
application of *any* ideology then you will find success within it.
However, I'm quite content where I'm at and feel no need for any
more comparative shopping.
> Just curious that's all. ;)
[snip]
--jodyr.
[kenneth]
>[kenneth], iam...@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 13 May 1999 23:28:40 -0700, jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>> >It is rather simple actually. There is a manifest and an
>> >unmanifest universe. God exists as both. The manifest is
>> >the world of name and form, what I usually refer to as
>> >Maya. The unmanifest universe is simply the Self, the
>> >source of all being, henceforth referred to as Brahman.
>>
>> You are looking at this from the viewpoint of us earthlings.
>>
>> God actually is the manifest, and us the unmanifest. or: God is Real, we
>> are maya. Not real.
>
>This is untenable.
To you maybe, but not to me and others. :)
>Until we are realized, we only have our
>viewpoints as individuals to rely upon for our basis of understanding.
>After we are realized, we find that the world remains the world.
No it does not. It may remain the world for others who have not realized
yet, but for any one who has experienced enlightenment, the world is
seen for what it is: illusion, not created by God.
>What changes is our perception of *ourselves*, not our perception
>of the world.
What changes is we *realize 'who'* we are. That we are created by God,
in His image. We Self Realize that all there is, is God. Nothing, no
thing exists outside of God. And it is no longer a perception... it is a
fact. In enlightenment, there is no more perception, there is a knowing.
Perception is a physical phenomenon, based on experience and education.
We all perceive the same thing differently, because it is illusionary.
That is why we all have different color tastes, choices and beliefs.
God IS. God created us in His image, that's all. What He created cannot
be changed, we ARE. Not open to perception, not open to choices, tastes
and beliefs. All these are seen to be what they are, of no value.
But the Joy, Peace, Happiness and other attributes of God are far far
more beautiful and better that anything this world can offer.
>I have direct communication with 4 individuals who
>are certainly realized and they all agree with the above.
They are fooling themselves. If they believe, after their enlightenment
that God is unmanifest, and this world is manifest, their thinking and
beliefs are upside down.
>> When you experience enlightenment, you are aware only of God, and His
>> attributes. This is the Manifest Form of God. Not unmanifest as you
>> suggest.
>
>Do you know this from direct experience, or have you created (or
>adopted) an expectation of what enlightenment is?
I know this from direct experience.
>> In this state of enlightenment, you are not aware of the earth or the
>> body. Therefore the earth and body are unmanifest. Illusion. Maya. Not
>> manifest as you suggest.
>
>Again, do you know this for experiential fact?
Yes.
>As stated above, I know
>personally at least 4 individuals who are in a state of *permanent*
>enlightenment.
Bullshit. Not you, but them. No one can be in a permanent state of
enlightenment here on earth. The manifest and unmanifest cannot exist
simultaneously in one's consciousness.
>*None* of them would agree with you as to what the state
>entails.
That's ok. They are incorrect.
Questions: if they are in a permanent state of enlightenment, do they
teach? If so what do they teach? Do they still work, or rely on God's
abundance? His Love and Will? Do they have problems in their lives, or
are they in a state of happiness, joy and peace? Do they practice
detachment form this world and it's problems, realizing that these are
choices made by the people involved?
BTW, please define enlightenment : do you mean aware of themselves as
God, or Self Realized as the GOD IS, I AM state? There is a difference
you know.
>Now you can suggest that they have not reached the *final*
>stage, however, until you have done the same you are guilty of some
>seriously wishful thinking.
I have experienced this state of Self Realization to accept it as my
natural state. Sufficient to say it is an easy state to get to, but a
difficult one to hold onto, due to fears and fear of lose of identity
and loss of personal possessions. etc.
Even with the experience it is still difficult to maintain this state
permanently. That is to stay 'there' permanetly, where we belong. It has
to be experienced until one overcomes all the fears associated with
this, and in this world, due to our upbringing, teachings and
experiences.
>> Remember, our true form is that of creation in God's image. Not
>> humanities form.
>
>You've taken this "God's image" thing a bit too far I think.
Think : we are created in God's image. So where is God's flesh/blood
body? His ego? It is not.
>We *are* God made manifest in the world as individuals.
No, Jody, this is the wrong way around. God did not create us as
individuals to punish us.... how can Love punish and hurt etc.? It
cannot. You said before that Love can do what it wants, but how can Love
punish?
But the Self Realized state shows one that God is infinite, eternal,
omnipotent and LOVE. Perfection. This is the state in which we were
created. God's image. Self Realization gives you this knowledge, that
you *are* already this state.
> The
>bummer is that the process of becoming in the world obliterates
>any direct perception of this, which is why we're all looking.
Yes, I agree. That is why I teach Look Within, because that is where
people do not search. Searching takes place in the other people of this
world. We tend to believe someone else can make us happy, give us love,
give us spiritual happiness and growth. We look for God every where
except where He is to be found.
No one can give you Love, because that is all there is, God's Love. This
is found within. No where else. LOVE IS.
>> >I regard the manifest universe as my Mother. I call Her
>> >Kali.
>>
>> Interesting. You tend to have a problem in referring to, or speaking,
>> the word 'God'. You call Him Brahman. And you deny God even further by
>> calling Him Mother/Kali.
>
>I deny nothing. God *is* my Mother and my Father and my Lover.
>I'm heterosexual and so I prefer my partners to be Female.
So be it. But how can God be in human form? He is Spirit. Again you
refer to God from a Human's viewpoint.
Have you asked your enlightened friends what/who God is?
[aside. how is God your lover? I am just curious here ;) ]
>> It is not important what sex God is, as God is sexless. But western
>> tradition calls God 'Him', and the Sonship 'him' as well.
>
>What the Western tradition holds holds *nothing* for me. In fact I
>couldn't give a rat's ass about it.
But you do.
>This isn't to say that it's not all good. If you are sincere in the
>application of *any* ideology then you will find success within it.
>However, I'm quite content where I'm at and feel no need for any
>more comparative shopping.
OK. I will not push the shopping cart your way again :)
Peace and blessings to you and yours
Kenneth
Elizabeth J. Jelich-Griffin
>
> On Mon, 17 May 1999 18:22:28 -0700, jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
<snipped a very interesting discussion, thank you>
One of you two sounds like a solipsist (perhaps [kenneth]).
If I understand solipsism correctly, everything is an illusion,
experiences, perceptions, except for something, but I'm not sure
what word to use here. GOD? EVERYTHING? ONENESS?
love,
Beth
Allen Crider
"Elizabeth J. Jelich-Griffin" wrote:
>
> [kenneth], iam...@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 17 May 1999 18:22:28 -0700, jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
>
> <snipped a very interesting discussion, thank you>
>
> One of you two sounds like a solipsist (perhaps [kenneth]).
>
> If I understand solipsism correctly, everything is an illusion,
> experiences, perceptions, except for something, but I'm not sure
> what word to use here. GOD? EVERYTHING? ONENESS?
Yes. The dreamer that dreams the all.
>
> love,
> Beth
jo...@ix.netcom.com
[snip]
Let's boil it down a little.
I claim that the whole of reality is a manifestation of God.
You claim that only God is real and we (as embodied individuals)
and the world are totally illusory, and in fact do not exist at
all from God's perspective.
We agree that realization of the Self is a kind of essential
understanding of oneself with regards to God, that we *are*
God, but we've lost 'ourselves' in the human experience.
We both claim to be coming from a place of known experience.
What's it say? We have *very* different experiences of
ourselves. Whose experience is valid? Who knows?
However, don't you claim that at realization we have at
our disposal unlimited power? If this is so you should
be able to demonstrate that power. I on the other hand
claim no power for myself as I know *all* power is in
the Hands of Shakti, the creative principle.
I cannot demonstrate that my realization is somehow more
"realized" than yours, but you could.
--jodyr.
iam...@globalnet.co.uk
<jel...@unground-river.com> wrote:
>[kenneth], iam...@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 17 May 1999 18:22:28 -0700, jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>
><snipped a very interesting discussion, thank you>
>
>One of you two sounds like a solipsist (perhaps [kenneth]).
>
>If I understand solipsism correctly, everything is an illusion,
>experiences, perceptions, except for something, but I'm not sure
>what word to use here. GOD? EVERYTHING? ONENESS?
>
>
>love,
>Beth
Correct Beth. Only God is Real. All else is illusion.
Even our experiences, and most especially our perceptions are illusion.
Even the teachings of which I write are illusions. Why? Because we have
never left God, the Real. We cannot.
Kenneth
iam...@globalnet.co.uk
wrote:
>"Elizabeth J. Jelich-Griffin" wrote:
>>
>> [kenneth], iam...@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, 17 May 1999 18:22:28 -0700, jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>> >
>>
>> <snipped a very interesting discussion, thank you>
>>
>> One of you two sounds like a solipsist (perhaps [kenneth]).
>>
>> If I understand solipsism correctly, everything is an illusion,
>> experiences, perceptions, except for something, but I'm not sure
>> what word to use here. GOD? EVERYTHING? ONENESS?
>
>Yes. The dreamer that dreams the all.
Taking this analogy further:
when we are asleep, we dream. In this dream state we believe the dreams
are real. Obviously they are unreal. Illusion. These dreams are the
equivalent to the ego state we are in, right now. Unreal. All a dream.
Illusion.
It is the dreamer who dreams, so the dreamer is the one who awakes, then
realising who they are. Equivalent to the God state we should be in.
Waking up and Self Realising we are actually God, not ego.
Kenneth
iam...@globalnet.co.uk
describe the experience at all accurately, but here is an analogy:
A drop of water = you.
The ocean = God.
Imagine you are a drop of water in the ocean.
Next to you, and all around you, are other drops of water, all with an
awareness of themselves. Yet they are all one with the ocean, one in the
ocean.
All doing the will of the ocean. As the ocean moves, so you and the
others move. You have your being in the ocean. You live in the ocean.
You live and move and have your being in the ocean.
You look around, up, down, sideways. Every where you look, you see the
ocean. The ocean is infinite, wherever you look you cannot see the end.
The ocean is eternal. Therefore you are eternal.
You experience joy at being one with the ocean, with the other drops.
You are at peace, as you do the will of the ocean.
You have abundance, as the ocean provides all your needs.
There is nothing but ocean. You can say "I am ocean. Therefore I AM."
There is nothing but ocean. You can say "Ocean is all there is. Ocean
IS"
No awareness of anything else.
--------------
This is the easiest way for me to describe the experience of Self
Awareness. It does not give a correct 'view', as the language of God is
difficult to translate.
Kenneth
iam...@globalnet.co.uk
>[kenneth], iam...@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>Let's boil it down a little.
>
>I claim that the whole of reality is a manifestation of God.
Please define 'reality'. God's or egos?
>You claim that only God is real and we (as embodied individuals)
>and the world are totally illusory, and in fact do not exist at
>all from God's perspective.
Correct.
>We agree that realization of the Self is a kind of essential
>understanding of oneself with regards to God, that we *are*
>God, but we've lost 'ourselves' in the human experience.
Correct.
>We both claim to be coming from a place of known experience.
Correct.
>What's it say? We have *very* different experiences of
>ourselves. Whose experience is valid? Who knows?
Mine is valid, because I have experienced it. I have no proof that yours
and your friends are valid or not, except on your/friends description.
These do not tally with mine, so from my perspective and experience
differ. Ergo, I am correct. But perceptions are illusions. Unreal.
>However, don't you claim that at realization we have at
>our disposal unlimited power? If this is so you should
>be able to demonstrate that power.
Nice try Jody. Not successful, I am afraid. You see, I do not claim to
be in a perpetual state of Self Awareness. I have experience of it. So
to demonstrate this power [how do you want me to?] cannot happen right
now.
However, I have cured myself of epilepsy. I have abundance. [Oxford
dictionary: abundance sufficient for our daily needs.]
In 1992 I had two major seizures in 24 hours, unconscious both times for
a total of 10 hours. We lost everything as I could not work and had very
little memory. We lost a beautiful home, four cars, our investments and
all our possessions.
At this time my spiritual knowledge was based on the eastern teachings,
as most of us on this list are. And not really understood, as most of us
on these newsgroups. And of course not practiced in a daily routine,
rather not 'lived' daily.
We returned to UK, from Canada, with a few hundred dollars and a few
suitcases of clothes. We lived for three months with my wife's niece.
During this time I was desperate for help from this bloody awful
creature called God.
I was led to A Course in Miracles, in a strange way. I suddenly had the
thought to go down to the local esoteric bookstore, I did not know why.
As we walked across the street to enter the store, I was told
'internally' to go straight down to the back of the store, where I would
find a blue book on a shelf by itself. I ignored this, and worked my way
down there by looking at the books on the way down.
Sure enough there was this book A Course in Miracles, and since the
purchase of this book, my life fell into place. I practiced the
teachings, and realized that I could heal myself if I could get the
faith.
This happened, and also in the book is a teaching on abundance. See the
New Testament as well for teachings on abundance. My wife and I put
these principles to work, and today, seven years since, we have
everything we could need. Without working for it.
We have a beautiful 4 bedroomed house, fully furnished , [no car yet,
but soon. Any way we do not really need a car, as downtown is a ten
minute walk, and the bus stop is down the road. We can get to anywhere
in the UK very quickly. Abundance is sufficient for your needs, so a car
is not a need]. These possesions are ilusionary, but whilst here we need
them.
We have three computers at home, a lovely lifestyle as well. We are more
comfortable now at this time of life, than at any time previously. (I am
60 years old last month :)
This is power. The power to have what is needed, obtained as a gift from
God. Healing of myself. Healing of our finances, through God's gift of
abundance. The money 'just' comes in from various sources as we need it.
I have even picked up money in the street when we needed to purchase
food. [at the beginning, whilst we were developing trust and faith in
the gift of abundance]. I can tell you many events in the last seven
years of how this abundance works.
This is God's power at work, and I use it everyday. One day perhaps I
may be required to have more, and do healing etc as needed. This power
is not about getting riches, healing willy nilly etc. [nor running away
from :-) You cannot run from something you have. You can of course
reject it, but it is always there].
>I on the other hand
>claim no power for myself as I know *all* power is in
>the Hands of Shakti, the creative principle.
I do claim this power as my birthright, as stated above. Agreed the
power may be in the hands of God, but as I am created in God's image, I
am all powerful. Trust, faith are the requirements. Tough to accept,
tougher to practice. [Faith can move mountains].
The creative principle is God's. We are created in God's image.
Therefore this creative principle is ours as well.
>I cannot demonstrate that my realization is somehow more
>"realized" than yours, but you could.
I have no need to. But I have explained to you above how I have used it
already.
Peace to you and yours,
Kenneth
iam...@globalnet.co.uk
God is infinite: we all know this, and accept it.
But what does it mean? Have you ever sat down and thought about the
meaning of infinity? Please read this carefully, sentence by sentence,
and think about what you have just read.
Infinity means without end. God is without end. If you look up at the
stars, look for the furthermost star that you can see, it could be one
billion light years away. Good you say, we know this.
Now look the other way, and find another star, also say, one billion
light years away. That means the stars are two billion light years away
from each.
That means: if you travel from one of these stars to the other, at the
speed of light, it will take you two billion years to get there. Think
of the vast distance they are away from each other. Think what it means
to sit in a craft for two billion years. :). Can you see how big this
is?
God is still bigger than this.
You can keep travelling like this forever and a day, you will still not
*ever* get to the end of God. Never ever. Expand your mind now, and
think of this concept. Try and really realise that God is infinite, and
the huge size of Him. Limitless. Wherever you travel at whatever speed
you can think of, God IS there. You are still in God. Therefore God IS.
Therefore I AM in God. Always.
Back to planet Earth. Our 'home' is infinitesimally small, compared to
where we have travelled. If we leave our planet at the speed of light,
with our eyes closed, and travel in any direction we choose, for one
light day [note: one light day], we will never ever find our way back.
Why? Our planet, and our sun, will have disappeared into the inky
blackness of space. Where is it? No longer visible. Not even a speck of
dust. Our sun is too small compared to the vastness of the two billion
light years of the two stars we first looked at.
Now ask yourself, why would something so huge as God IS, create such an
infinitesimally small planet, stock it with flesh and blood bodies
[egos], and 'talk' and 'see' and 'hear', and destroy, recreate and
concern Himself with something not recognisable from one light day away?
Holy shit, aren't our egos huge, or what?
Which is why God could not have created this terrible earth. We, the
occupiers of this earth, created this earth when we separated [fell]
from God, in an attempt to create an 'opposite' to God. Which is why
earth is so small, compared to God's vastness.
We, our ego's, are far to small to compare to God's infinity, yet we
concern ourselves so much over our selves. So small, yet we all think we
are so big, so clever, and that God concerns himself over us.
Yet, in the beginning, God created us in His image, that is in likeness
to Him. That means we are really the same as God, infinite. Bigger than
two billion light years across! This is the True Self of us, the
Perfection I speak of. The ego is our creation, created to be the
opposite of God. We have assumed this small consciousness to experience
the 'opposite' of God.
I suggest you get your heads around this infinity of God, realise that
wherever you go in the universe, God IS, and that we were created in
this likeness, infinite, and that therefore I AM. In God.
And realise that God did not create this earth, nor the ego's, nor could
God create something so small, nor create something to destroy it. Only
ego could have done this.
Kenneth
Annex/St. Albans
Now, I like the way you think!
Good job, Kenneth. You've got a lot of good points. Maybe you'll be able to
get some of these people thinking. Hope so. I tried, but apparently if one
writes a book on the subject and offers for others to join in, you get
crucified...But it's all illusion anyway. They can't even see that I am
helping them verify and create their illusions as a lesson. So the Illusion
continues...I long for the Ocean.
Rev. Dave
Rev. Dave
iam...@globalnet.co.uk wrote in message
<37430faf...@read.news.global.net.uk>...
jo...@ix.netcom.com
>
> On Tue, 18 May 1999 20:10:47 -0700, jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >[kenneth], iam...@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >Let's boil it down a little.
> >
> >I claim that the whole of reality is a manifestation of God.
>
> Please define 'reality'. God's or egos?
Isn't there only one? I mean in the ultimate sense.
> >You claim that only God is real and we (as embodied individuals)
> >and the world are totally illusory, and in fact do not exist at
> >all from God's perspective.
>
> Correct.
>
> >We agree that realization of the Self is a kind of essential
> >understanding of oneself with regards to God, that we *are*
> >God, but we've lost 'ourselves' in the human experience.
>
> Correct.
>
> >We both claim to be coming from a place of known experience.
>
> Correct.
>
> >What's it say? We have *very* different experiences of
> >ourselves. Whose experience is valid? Who knows?
>
> Mine is valid, because I have experienced it. I have no proof that yours
> and your friends are valid or not, except on your/friends description.
> These do not tally with mine, so from my perspective and experience
> differ. Ergo, I am correct. But perceptions are illusions. Unreal.
So you experience that the world is unreal. This doesn't make the
world unreal. You *perceive* the world to be unreal, therefore you
*believe* the world to be unreal. To see the world as unreal is as
much of a perception as to see it as real.
> >However, don't you claim that at realization we have at
> >our disposal unlimited power? If this is so you should
> >be able to demonstrate that power.
>
> Nice try Jody. Not successful, I am afraid. You see, I do not claim to
> be in a perpetual state of Self Awareness. I have experience of it. So
> to demonstrate this power [how do you want me to?] cannot happen right
> now.
>
> However, I have cured myself of epilepsy. I have abundance. [Oxford
> dictionary: abundance sufficient for our daily needs.]
[snipped miracle tale]
> This is God's power at work, and I use it everyday. One day perhaps I
> may be required to have more, and do healing etc as needed. This power
> is not about getting riches, healing willy nilly etc. [nor running away
> from :-) You cannot run from something you have. You can of course
> reject it, but it is always there].
You've been blessed, this is obvious. However, it is quite a jump from
having your needs taken care of to unlimited power. Mother takes care
of my needs too. I have several miracle tales I could relate. But the
big difference is that I don't take credit for *any* of it. Ma did it.
I was the beneficiary of it, but I didn't do it. It was (and is) all Ma.
> >I on the other hand
> >claim no power for myself as I know *all* power is in
> >the Hands of Shakti, the creative principle.
>
> I do claim this power as my birthright, as stated above. Agreed the
> power may be in the hands of God, but as I am created in God's image, I
> am all powerful. Trust, faith are the requirements. Tough to accept,
> tougher to practice. [Faith can move mountains].
When you move a mountain I'll believe you.
> The creative principle is God's. We are created in God's image.
> Therefore this creative principle is ours as well.
Ours *as* pure awareness, which we are. However, pure awareness
has no need to "do" anything. Stuff gets done in the universe
anyway, but it's not the "doing" of pure awareness, it is the necessary
*effect* of Its existence. I mean, how can awareness *be* without
something to be aware of. This is why the universe *is* created,
so awareness can have something to be aware of. This is why
diversity is a key element in creation. Awareness seeks to be
aware as much as possible. Diversity *increases* novelty, novelty
creates new awareness.
Now the new awareness that is being created is awareness of what
you are calling the unreal. But there can be *no* awareness without
the Self. Any and all awareness that is experienced by an individual
is done so by the agency of the Self. So all that 'unrealness' is
completely and totally suffused by God in the form of awareness that
is entangled in creation.
> >I cannot demonstrate that my realization is somehow more
> >"realized" than yours, but you could.
>
> I have no need to. But I have explained to you above how I have used it
> already.
>
> Peace to you and yours,
>
> Kenneth
>
> iam...@globalnet.co.uk
Peace to you too Kenneth.
--jodyr.
jo...@ix.netcom.com
>
> God is infinite: we all know this, and accept it.
>
> But what does it mean? Have you ever sat down and thought about the
> meaning of infinity? Please read this carefully, sentence by sentence,
> and think about what you have just read.
The experience of infinity will never be Its "meaning".
> Infinity means without end. God is without end. If you look up at the
> stars, look for the furthermost star that you can see, it could be one
> billion light years away. Good you say, we know this.
>
> Now look the other way, and find another star, also say, one billion
> light years away. That means the stars are two billion light years away
> from each.
>
> That means: if you travel from one of these stars to the other, at the
> speed of light, it will take you two billion years to get there. Think
> of the vast distance they are away from each other. Think what it means
> to sit in a craft for two billion years. :). Can you see how big this
> is?
>
> God is still bigger than this.
If you think infinity means "bigger than the biggest thing you can ever
imagine" then you don't know it directly.
> You can keep travelling like this forever and a day, you will still not
> *ever* get to the end of God. Never ever. Expand your mind now, and
> think of this concept. Try and really realise that God is infinite, and
> the huge size of Him. Limitless. Wherever you travel at whatever speed
> you can think of, God IS there. You are still in God. Therefore God IS.
> Therefore I AM in God. Always.
You've limited "limitless" and infinity by 1) its "huge size" and 2)
that you can somehow "expand" to be as God is.
> Back to planet Earth. Our 'home' is infinitesimally small, compared to
> where we have travelled. If we leave our planet at the speed of light,
> with our eyes closed, and travel in any direction we choose, for one
> light day [note: one light day], we will never ever find our way back.
> Why? Our planet, and our sun, will have disappeared into the inky
> blackness of space. Where is it? No longer visible. Not even a speck of
> dust. Our sun is too small compared to the vastness of the two billion
> light years of the two stars we first looked at.
>
> Now ask yourself, why would something so huge as God IS, create such an
> infinitesimally small planet, stock it with flesh and blood bodies
> [egos], and 'talk' and 'see' and 'hear', and destroy, recreate and
> concern Himself with something not recognisable from one light day away?
Maybe because God *IS* his creation?
> Holy shit, aren't our egos huge, or what?
>
> Which is why God could not have created this terrible earth. We, the
> occupiers of this earth, created this earth when we separated [fell]
> from God, in an attempt to create an 'opposite' to God. Which is why
> earth is so small, compared to God's vastness.
I think this is "left field" kind of stuff Kenneth, and there's just
no need to comment on it.
> We, our ego's, are far to small to compare to God's infinity, yet we
> concern ourselves so much over our selves. So small, yet we all think we
> are so big, so clever, and that God concerns himself over us.
I think you've got to anthropomorphize God a bit Kenneth. Our personal-
ities don't compare to God, true. But it isn't because we are so "small"
and God is so "infinite". It's because God is pure awareness and we
are awareness entangled in the world. Made of the same "stuff", just
not aware of ourselves as we really are, pure awareness.
> Yet, in the beginning, God created us in His image, that is in likeness
> to Him. That means we are really the same as God, infinite. Bigger than
> two billion light years across! This is the True Self of us, the
> Perfection I speak of. The ego is our creation, created to be the
> opposite of God. We have assumed this small consciousness to experience
> the 'opposite' of God.
Kenneth, can't you see that you've given God the attributes of ego by taking
the "created in his image" thing so literally.
> I suggest you get your heads around this infinity of God, realise that
> wherever you go in the universe, God IS, and that we were created in
> this likeness, infinite, and that therefore I AM. In God.
Around infinity our heads will never get.
Pure awareness can only be perceived by pure awareness. While what we
are *is* pure awareness, our minds are limited to perceptual reality
(what you're calling unreal).
> And realise that God did not create this earth, nor the ego's, nor could
> God create something so small, nor create something to destroy it. Only
> ego could have done this.
Kenneth, it's been fun discussing this with you but we are simply on
different planets here. I guess we'll have to let the readers decide
for themselves who's on Earth and each carry on in his merry way!
> Kenneth
>
> iam...@globalnet.co.uk
love--jodyr.
jo...@ix.netcom.com
> I think you've got to anthropomorphize God a bit Kenneth. Our personal-
> ities don't compare to God, true. But it isn't because we are so "small"
> and God is so "infinite". It's because God is pure awareness and we
> are awareness entangled in the world. Made of the same "stuff", just
> not aware of ourselves as we really are, pure awareness.
I meant to say "de-anthropomorphize God a bit."
--jodyr.
[kenneth]
>Kenneth, it's been fun discussing this with you but we are simply on
>different planets here. I guess we'll have to let the readers decide
>for themselves who's on Earth and each carry on in his merry way!
>
Aaaaah, just as I was enjoying myself ;((
Peace to you Jody, and thank you, as I have learnt from you.
Peace
Kenneth
Annex/St. Albans
Before Satori, one chops wood and carries water...
After Satori...
One chops wood and carries water.
(Not to butt in, but it sounds less "Yoda" like in the older format. I
learned this saying in 1970.)
Absolutely True!!!!
Namaste'
Rev. David St. Albans 0:-)
si...@onechip.co.uk wrote in message <9272272...@onechip.co.uk>...
>In article <37412a7d...@read.news.global.net.uk>, [kenneth]
iam...@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 May 1999 18:22:28 -0700, jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>> >[kenneth], iam...@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 13 May 1999 23:28:40 -0700, jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >It is rather simple actually. There is a manifest and an
>> >> >unmanifest universe. God exists as both. The manifest is
>> >> >the world of name and form, what I usually refer to as
>> >> >Maya. The unmanifest universe is simply the Self, the
>> >> >source of all being, henceforth referred to as Brahman.
>> >>
>> >> You are looking at this from the viewpoint of us earthlings.
>> >>
>> >> God actually is the manifest, and us the unmanifest. or: God is Real,
we
>> >> are maya. Not real.
>> >
>> >This is untenable.
>>
>> To you maybe, but not to me and others. :)
>
>
>Before enlightenment, chopping wood.
>After enlightenment, chopping wood.
>
>(Old Zen saying.)
>
>
>
>Simon
>
>---
>"This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind" -Ecclesiastes 4:16
>
>si...@onechip.co.uk | Not affiliated to any religion
>si...@lucid.co.uk | Not affiliated to any politics
>H (+44/0)1784 431998 | Not affiliated to any ideology
>W (+44/0)1784 434568 (GMT/BST) | What does that make me?
>
>
si...@onechip.co.uk
>
> >[kenneth], iam...@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 13 May 1999 23:28:40 -0700, jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >It is rather simple actually. There is a manifest and an
> >> >unmanifest universe. God exists as both. The manifest is
> >> >the world of name and form, what I usually refer to as
> >> >Maya. The unmanifest universe is simply the Self, the
> >> >source of all being, henceforth referred to as Brahman.
> >>
> >> You are looking at this from the viewpoint of us earthlings.
> >>
> >> God actually is the manifest, and us the unmanifest. or: God is Real, we
> >> are maya. Not real.
> >
> >This is untenable.
>
> To you maybe, but not to me and others. :)
David H. Ellison
provides the hands, Shakti animates them; which is why they are
sometimes referred to in tantric literature as the Bride and Bride
Groom... "there is no marriage without the Bri...." you know the
rest.... What difference?
jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> However, don't you claim that at realization we have at
> our disposal unlimited power? If this is so you should
> be able to demonstrate that power. I on the other hand
> claim no power for myself as I know *all* power is in
> the Hands of Shakti, the creative principle.
>
>
> --jodyr.
David H. Ellison
hallucination! When you perceive one thing as another, that is an
illusion... the stick may not be a rifle, would you still choose to be hit
by it? A hallucination? There is no train in the tunnel, in fact it is
empty, you can lay there all day, but even the tunnel does not exist... like
your argument.....
iam...@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 1999 20:10:47 -0700, jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >[kenneth], iam...@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
> >
> >I claim that the whole of reality is a manifestation of God.
>
> Please define 'reality'. God's or egos?
No difference.
<cutting when needed>
> >What's it say? We have *very* different experiences of
> >ourselves. Whose experience is valid? Who knows?
>
> Mine is valid, because I have experienced it. I have no proof that yours
> and your friends are valid or not, except on your/friends description.
> These do not tally with mine, so from my perspective and experience
> differ. Ergo, I am correct. But perceptions are illusions. Unreal.
No, there is no difference. LOL only your words say so. Funny continuum!
Really nice story, thank you!
> >I on the other hand
> >claim no power for myself as I know *all* power is in
> >the Hands of Shakti, the creative principle.
>
> I do claim this power as my birthright, as stated above. Agreed the
> power may be in the hands of God, but as I am created in God's image, I
> am all powerful. Trust, faith are the requirements. Tough to accept,
> tougher to practice. [Faith can move mountains].
Sounds the same as J's statement to me... no difference.
> The creative principle is God's. We are created in God's image.
> Therefore this creative principle is ours as well.
Marriage.
> >I cannot demonstrate that my realization is somehow more
> >"realized" than yours, but you could.
>
> I have no need to. But I have explained to you above how I have used it
> already.
>
> Peace to you and yours,
>
> Kenneth
>
> iam...@globalnet.co.uk
Good posts!
David H. Ellison
iam...@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 1999 17:33:57 -0700, Allen Crider <caps...@sirius.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Elizabeth J. Jelich-Griffin" wrote:
> >>
> >> [kenneth], iam...@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, 17 May 1999 18:22:28 -0700, jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >> >
> >>
Glenn Webb
>I think you've got to anthropomorphize God a bit Kenneth. Our personal-
>ities don't compare to God, true. But it isn't because we are so "small"
>and God is so "infinite". It's because God is pure awareness and we
>are awareness entangled in the world. Made of the same "stuff", just
>not aware of ourselves as we really are, pure awareness.
>
>> Yet, in the beginning, God created us in His image, that is in likeness
>> to Him. That means we are really the same as God, infinite. Bigger than
>> two billion light years across! This is the True Self of us, the
>> Perfection I speak of. The ego is our creation, created to be the
>> opposite of God. We have assumed this small consciousness to experience
>> the 'opposite' of God.
>
>Kenneth, can't you see that you've given God the attributes of ego by taking
>the "created in his image" thing so literally.
>
>> I suggest you get your heads around this infinity of God, realise that
>> wherever you go in the universe, God IS, and that we were created in
>> this likeness, infinite, and that therefore I AM. In God.
>
>Around infinity our heads will never get.
>
>Pure awareness can only be perceived by pure awareness. While what we
>are *is* pure awareness, our minds are limited to perceptual reality
>(what you're calling unreal).
>
>> And realise that God did not create this earth, nor the ego's, nor could
>> God create something so small, nor create something to destroy it. Only
>> ego could have done this.
>
>Kenneth, it's been fun discussing this with you but we are simply on
>different planets here. I guess we'll have to let the readers decide
>for themselves who's on Earth and each carry on in his merry way!
>
>> Kenneth
>>
>> iam...@globalnet.co.uk
>
>love--jodyr.
I don't see you "on different planets" at all you are like the
Apostals who wrote the Gospels describing the same thing from opposing
veiwpoints, kinda like the blind men describing an eliphant touching
dif parts of its body !
I agree with both of you. "God" does too IMO.
Glenn (Christian Mystic)