Message from discussion A devotee's definition of God
Subject: A devotee's definition of God
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-NETCOM-Date: Thu May 13 11:24:42 PM PDT 1999
Kenneth and I are having a discussion as to the nature of
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
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. ;)