|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
 Posted - Dec 09 2006 : 7:55:55 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by VIL: "I do agree that these symbols were understood by these pioneers of the human experience, but would say that the wisdom was revealed by subsequent contemplation/insight. Kundalini awakens [my own experience]; and then begins the 'gradual process' of cleansing/unfoldment. In other words, the 'knowledge doesn't suddenly infuse the individual with insight', but that a 'series of phenomenon/bodily feelings/Etc.', are interpreted..." VIL
Namaste VIL:
This is the subject of my initial reply to you. Namely, that you ASSUME the need of a 'gradual process', ASSUME that 'knowledge doesn't suddenly infuse the individual with insight', and ASSUME that interpretation of 'a series of phenomenon', et al, will be required for personal reception of Holy Wisdom and Divine Revelation. All of these assumptions are apparently based on the summarily false, foundation assumption that everyone's experience on the Spiritual Path will of necessity have to duplicate your own.  This view leads, of course, to your final assumption, that I "lack relevant experience", since I disagree with you! 
I make references to the known experiences of others because they provide very relevant proof that your assertions do not hold true for ALL Spiritual Seekers, my original point, as you claim! 
My personal opinion or state of spiritual attainment is irrelevant to the issue of whether there can indeed be a 'Sudden Enlightenment' or a 'Flash of Revelation' for any given individual whom God chooses to so Bless with same! 
Hari OM!
Doc |
Edited by - Doc on Dec 09 2006 8:07:43 PM |
 |
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 09 2006 : 8:11:06 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chiron
Truth is truth, whether it is spiritual or political. Challenging our established conclusions on politics is just as vital as challening our established conclusions on spiritual matters, both lead to growth and Yoga. Anyway, isn't this the "Satsang Cafe".. a place for off-topic discussions, why the ban on politics?
The ban on controversial political discussions wasn't decided by me of course, rather by Yogani, but I do happen to think the ban is a good idea. These would be my reasons for the ban: because politics is so darn distracting. Because the forum would degenerate into excessive political discussions.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Dec 09 2006 8:12:26 PM |
|
|
|
VIL
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - Dec 09 2006 : 8:23:36 PM
|
Okay, Doc, I think our discussions have gotten to the point where they're unproductive and we could go on forever picking apart every syntax nuisance, assumed word meaning, poster motive, etc.; but what would that solve? And you know what they say when we "ASS.U.ME."... [Ass - You - Me].
I think we've made asses out of ourselves long enough.
We can thank God for that little pearl of Wisdom and I'm sure you would agree that it would be preferable to eventually ride atop of that donkey[ego].
VIL |
Edited by - VIL on Dec 09 2006 11:38:02 PM |
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Dec 09 2006 : 9:30:13 PM
|
Agreed regarding the controversy of politcal issues.
However, you seem to be missing the point raised by using the examples of such hideous atrocities. The focal point in referring to these ungodly acts was not to debate the 'politics' surrounding these events, or the reasons given as justification by those who perpetrated them. 
Instead, they were referenced in order to question whether or not even the extreme examples of such unholy crimes against humanity can rightly be viewed as supportive of Chiron's view that "All is God's Will"...without exception. 
The subsequent elaboration of his perspective on this issue has since made this a somewhat moot point. We ARE NOT discussing politics here...at least insofar as I am concerned...but rather how to resolve the moral, ethical, and spiritual dilemmas which confront all serious Spiritual Aspirants everywhere who are striving to see God's Presence in everything!
Hari OM!
Doc |
Edited by - Doc on Dec 09 2006 11:19:09 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 09 2006 : 11:22:20 PM
|
However, you seem to be missing the point raised by using the examples of such hideous atrocities. ...We ARE NOT discussing politics here...at least insofar as I am concerned...
I actually got that point.... it is true that you are not discussing politics here. I am just pointing out the risks in the examples you chose... It was a politics alert... a caution...
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Dec 09 2006 11:25:06 PM |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Dec 10 2006 : 12:05:45 AM
|
Doc wrote: "What then do you feel is a workable, alternative spiritual view to Chiron's ideas ["it is all god's will"]? Why do you feel that your alternative perspective would be spiritually more 'in tune' with a serious Sadhana? And how would you implement it to be more focused 'on target' and in harmony with a grounded spiritual discipline?"
I believe we are all here to
1) find god within ourselves,
2) act in tune with his will, and
3) learn to get along with each other.
It is more "in tune" because it requires us each to have personal responsibility for our acts, which is more pro-active than believing everything is god's will.
It's very simple to implement: meditate twice a day; be devoted all day long; do everything "for god" instead of "for yourself".
It doesn't really require what may at first appear as "changing your whole life". All it requires is looking at life differently.
|
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Dec 10 2006 : 12:18:50 AM
|
Namaste VIL:
No need to feel that anyone here is making an ass of themselves.  Modification and control of mental activities is a key part of a productive Sadhana, is it not? The observation and analysis of thought patterns in ourselves and others, as expressed through open discussion and debate, can contribute to a greater awareness of how our thoughts determine our words, and how our words reflect our thoughts. And this leads to a deeper understanding of self...or greater Self-Realization.
So don't worry....be happy! It's all good!
Hari OM!
Doc |
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Dec 10 2006 : 12:31:00 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Etherfish:
"I believe we are all here to
1) find god within ourselves,
2) act in tune with his will, and
3) learn to get along with each other."
It's very simple to implement: meditate twice a day; be devoted all day long; do everything "for god" instead of "for yourself".
Namaste E:
Great reply and great advice for us all! Thanks for addressing my questions.
Hari OM!
Doc |
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Dec 10 2006 : 12:35:36 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian:
"I actually got that point.... it is true that you are not discussing politics here. I am just pointing out the risks in the examples you chose. It was a politics alert...a caution..."
Namaste David:
Understood on this end, too.  Thanks for the clarification and the caution.
Hari OM!
Doc |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5242 Posts |
Posted - Dec 10 2006 : 10:08:46 AM
|
Hi All:
It has been said that "Man is God playing the fool."
That covers a multitude of sins, doesn't it? While offering great hope...
So the order of the day (and every day) is purification and opening, because we are all emerging channels of the infinite, however impure we might seem in the moment, or at any time in the past. We are symbols of the divine, and much more -- we are the reality itself, however limited the expression is or has been.
Put another way: "If God is omnipresent, in what is God not present?" This is conceptual, of course. All concepts of God are human inventions.
Reality is what it is, and we can find out through direct experience by going within. That is where the rubber meets the road. All the rest is, well, you know -- yak yak yak...
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Dec 11 2006 : 04:06:45 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by yogani: "If God is omnipresent, in what is God not present?"
Totally agreed, Yogani! Divine Attributes always have and always will manifest as the Ultimate Reality of God...Sat-Chit-Anadam Brahman. I am often amazed that anyone would doubt this Eternal Truth, or believe otherwise!
Nonetheless, does the Omni-Presence of God necessarily mean that God's Will is being manifested in every situation or circumstance? Even when unholy and ungodly acts are committed?
If we answer this question..."Yes. All is God's Will"...then the negative intentions and negative energy of undeniably evil acts would appear to be completely incongruous with the positive attributes generally accepted as symbols of the Divine...such as unconditional love, mercy, empathy, beauty, compassion, and so forth. Such an untenable hypothesis is difficult to justify and nearly impossible to rationally defend.
Conversely, if we answer 'No' to this question, then whose will is being manifested in ungodly acts? If not God's Will, it must be man's will. This is how many religious theologians and spiritual philosophers concluded that humanity apparently possesses 'Free Will'. This view concedes that God is Eternally and Universally Present Everywhere, but not always the willful designer and perpetrator of that which happens.
If this is in fact true, it simply implies that the 'Free Will' of humanity...the ability to consciouslly choose what we think, feel, say, and do...is a Gift from God which can be potentially manifested either as a Great Blessing or a Great Curse depending on the choices made.
Can truly positive thoughts and intentions really manifest a negative outcome? Can truly negative thoughts and intention really manifest as something positive?
Hari OM!
Doc |
Edited by - Doc on Dec 11 2006 07:50:53 AM |
|
|
|
weaver
832 Posts |
Posted - Dec 11 2006 : 10:08:14 AM
|
quote:
Nonetheless, does the Omni-Presence of God necessarily mean that God's Will is being manifested in every situation or circumstance? Even when unholy and ungodly acts are committed?
Hi Doc,
I share basically the same view as you state above.
It can still be God's will in the sense that God allows it to happen. If God has given free will to his sons and daughters, they are free to play in a corner of the room (having limited consciousness and power) to learn from their own mistakes. It doesn't have to be God's will that they play bad games in the sense that he intends them to do it, and they will not become free to be able to use his whole house or all his tools (unlimited consciousness and power = enlightenment) until they learn to play in harmony with his divine attributes. |
|
|
|
Sparkle
Ireland
1457 Posts |
Posted - Dec 11 2006 : 11:18:21 AM
|
If you look at the evolution of the universe, and as part of this, the evolution of consciousness in mankind and compare it to the simplicity of a growing flower.
The flower could be a rose bud for instance and as it receives the light it expands and unravels and grows. One can imagine the friction and growing pains involved as the bud grows and unwinds itself to full bloom.
In the same way the growing pains and suffering of mankind can be seen as the learning ground out of which we evolve. Some call it evil, some lack of awareness, some growing pains, some ignorance.
My own voew is that in every instant of this evolution, it is a perfect instant. Everything is perfect just as it is. In the next instant in space time this is also perfect, although slightly different. As this perfect unfoldment occurs we can learn to be in the present moment and out of the space time, past/present trap that allows us to hold onto the pain and act out of it.
Some people call "being" or present moment awareness, surrendering to the will of God.
In the end it's all about surrender. My problem with some interpretations of God is that it can set up polarities within a person and system of discovery. We can get polarities such as good and evil, right and wrong, superior and inferior etc etc. Whereas in "being" there is non of that - just "being". Everything is perfect.
Louis
|
Edited by - Sparkle on Dec 11 2006 11:19:29 AM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 11 2006 : 11:39:10 AM
|
I haven't much time today, and I can't do full justice to this discussion, whether the ideas of other people here, or my own, in the time I have. What I will do is throw out some food for thought, without even coming close to tying up the loose ends. Ready for something controversial?
I see thinking, and willing, as well as feeling, as bodily functions (and I don't believe God has bodily functions). That might sound odd at first glance, very odd, maybe. In fact, it is one of those things that might sound crazy at first and then become more and more solid as you investigate it further.
Start with thinking. Thinking a bodily function? What is the process that we call thinking? We gather finite information and process it. We do this because we are animals, who have only finite knowledge. Thinking is a sorting process of finite information, done by animals with finite information. It's a time-based process --- there is a BEFORE, when the information is gathered (which is a moving from less information to more), a DURING, in which the sorting is done, and an AFTER, when the thinking is over but the conclusions may be taking root.
I see thinking is to knowledge something like digestion is to food -- as a bodily function of a finite animal.
Would something of infinite knowledge think? I don't think so -- look at the defining characteristics of thinking. No, no more than a being of infinite energy would digest food. And as I see thinking and willing and feeling as bodily functions, I don't think the formless bodyless absolute itself does them in any meaningful sense.
If it jars on you, let it digest a while.
Is there a kind of thinking that god does that is merely not finite in this way? Well, maybe, but if so, maybe it shouldn't be labelled thinking at all. Because it would be so unlike the thinking we know, that our concept of it is hardly accurate.
That's thinking. You can do something similar with will.
Food for thought. :)
|
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Dec 12 2006 : 3:32:36 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian:
I see thinking, and willing, as well as feeling, as bodily functions. What is the process that we call thinking? We gather finite information and process it. Thinking is a sorting process of finite information...a time-based process --- there is a BEFORE, when the information is gathered (which is a moving from less information to more), a DURING, in which the sorting is done, and an AFTER, when the thinking is over but the conclusions may be taking root.
Namaste David:
Interesting hypothesis and conclusions, but not one that I can really wrap my mind around, although I really like your above quoted summation description of the thinking process.
While acknowledging that certain biochemical and bioenergetic processes are a part of normal brain function in all creatures with a brain, these 'bodily functions' do not in any sense really represent the foundation of 'thinking'. The human ability to 'think'...i.e. to formulate ideas in the mind, to imagine and visualize, to reason and analyze, to devise or invent...are Mental Processes, not bodily functions per se.
It is exactly these Mental Processes, and their seemingly infinite variety of modifications and expressions, which Samyama is intended to observe and discipline through Concentration (Dharana) and Meditation (Dhyana) in order to perceive the Utlimate Reality of God...Sat-Chit-Anandam Brahman...i.e. God is Eternal Existence, Pure Consciousness, and Divine Bliss. The goal is to experience total absorption in Union with this Ultimate Reality via Samadhi.
While observation and discipline of 'bodily functions' are also part of a complete Ashtanga Yoga Sadhana...via Hatha Yoga Asanas and other practices...the physical aspects of practice are essentially preparatory means and tools for the achievement of Self-Realization and Liberation, rather than the primary long term focal points of a serious Sadhana. The most important and advanced aspects of a successful Sadhana are ultimately its mental and spiritual disciplines.
Hari OM!
Doc |
Edited by - Doc on Dec 13 2006 02:30:53 AM |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Dec 16 2006 : 01:51:40 AM
|
Yes i agree I don't believe God "thinks." All reasoning has already been done, and we just tap into it and believe we are "doing" it.
What we are really doing is "following" it. if the path we follow isn't manifest yet, we can claim it and make it manifest.
So God wouldn't need to follow the paths of reasoning because he would have instant connection with every conclusion possible.
So he would be more the energy flow of peace, silence, humans learning to understand and love each other, and love God.
|
|
|
|
VIL
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - Dec 16 2006 : 09:47:04 AM
|
I dunno about God not thinking, per se, because of the saying:
'We cannot contemplate God, because God is too busy contemplating'.
I think that was from the Sufi Tradition.
There are a lot of theories, but one things for certain is that He's Unknowable - from what I've read from every Spiritual Tradition.
I really don't know one way or the other, to tell you the truth. I think it's an interesting topic, though:
VIL |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 16 2006 : 11:38:08 AM
|
Etherfish said: So God wouldn't need to follow the paths of reasoning because he would have instant connection with every conclusion possible.
So he would be more the energy flow of peace, silence, humans learning to understand and love each other, and love God.
Sounds good!
Now, any volunteers to re-write the Bible with this in mind?
|
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Dec 16 2006 : 6:03:37 PM
|
Vil wrote
"'We cannot contemplate God, because God is too busy contemplating'."
Of the different aspects of God I have experienced, this wasn't one of them, but each aspect I've seen could be contemplated. Maybe this was not translated correctly, because no amount of busy-ness prevents someone from contemplating something.
But what I have experienced is that there is too much of God for me to perceive or contemplate more than one aspect at a time, and there are many aspects. Maybe that's what the original meaning was. Also, if the words were translated correctly, then there would be no method for the writer to determine the truth of such a statement, unless he just saw God moving so fast he couldn't perceive him, and assumed the same would be true for everyone always.
Re-write the bible David?
That could be done with an old bible and a black marker! Or you could take the pure truth out of the bible and copy it on a couple pages.
"blasphemous", huh?
People have over-active minds. They refuse to stick with simple, short truths for very long. They want more, more, more. So somebody takes simple, short truths and expresses them with a lot of words, and people can spend a lot of time "studying" them, and being glad they have such a valuable book.
How could something like a simple mantra possibly be as valuable as thousands of words?
Then people would say "If something so simple was so powerful, everybody would have done it. . ." I don't think so. |
Edited by - Etherfish on Dec 16 2006 6:29:16 PM |
|
|
|
VIL
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - Dec 18 2006 : 7:01:16 PM
|
Etherfish,
It could be an error in translation, but is from the standpoint of the impossibility of knowing the unknowable or comprehending the incomprehensible. In other words, there is a veil that separates us from Him and yet we are connected through the same faculty. So maybe a better way of saying it would be: We cannot contemplate God, because God is contemplation.
quote:
Etherfish: How could something like a simple mantra possibly be as valuable as thousands of words?
Then people would say "If something so simple was so powerful, everybody would have done it. . ." I don't think so.
It's like comparing apples and oranges or asking if ones' sight is more important than hearing. Both serve their purposes, and hold value, one not greater than the other.
VIL |
Edited by - VIL on Dec 18 2006 8:11:29 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Dec 18 2006 : 9:32:13 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by VIL
It could be an error in translation, but is from the standpoint of the impossibility of knowing the unknowable or comprehending the incomprehensible. In other words, there is a veil that separates us from Him and yet we are connected through the same faculty. So maybe a better way of saying it would be: We cannot contemplate God, because God is contemplation.
VIL
Or .... it could be that the current, colloquial meaning of the term "contemplation" has morphed a bit, since the word came into common usage, in English.
(?)
I don't know this for sure -- it's just a thought / piece of info I wanted to toss out, in case it might be useful to this conversation, overall.
Personally, when I think of someone "contemplating", I think of an activity having to do with ...... thinking!
However, our friends at the Online Etymology Dictionary beg to differ:
contemplation
c.1225, from O.Fr. contemplation, from L. contemplationem "act of looking at," from contemplari "to gaze attentively, observe," orig. "to mark out a space for observation" (as an augur does). From com- intensive prefix + templum "area for the taking of auguries" (see temple). Originally in Eng., "religious musing." Contemplate is from 1592; contemplative is from 1340.
So - just wanted to pass that along.
I don't pretend to know anything, really, about the exact nature of what might be called "God", or if He / She / They / It / We / That / This / All of the Above / None of the Above / 42 engage in thinking (or, more appropriately "Thinking"  ) or Contemplation.
However, per the etymological info posted above, I find it easier to imagine God (or "a Godlike entity", or "Infinite Intelligence", or "The One", or "the deluded confluence of concepts that Kirtanman's ego could agree might potentially resemble a Supreme-Being-ish type of entity") ....
A. Gazing attentively
B. Observing
or even
C. Marking out a space for observation
As opposed to good ol' Mental Cogitation ....
("Hm ... what if I tightened up Saturn's orbit just a leeetle bit?"
"What's the 2008 Presidential Race in the United States, Earth, Pseudo-Reality v1414.1008.9 gonna look like? .... Me only knows ...!",
"Hey, maybe I could take the exact vibrational controls needed for self-guided evolution of consciousness, and 'hide' them in an allegedly dead language - the name of which actually means 'perfected'! - gotta offer some clues, now .... hoo boy, that'd be a hoot!")
I dunno, though* .....
Peace & Namaste,
Kirtanman
*And I kinda like it that way; which is good -- because it's likely to be that way for some "time" to come.
"People think that Enlightenment means knowing everything, when it's actually more like the exact opposite ... Enlightenment is Un-knowing everything!"
-- Adyashanti
|
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Dec 19 2006 : 11:06:37 AM
|
Hello everyone!
Within the oldest extant Christian Traditions...namely Greek Orthodox Catholic, Roman Catholic, and Anglican Catholic...the term 'Contemplation' is used synonymously with the term 'Meditation' in other Spiritual Traditions. It embraces alot more spiritual meaning than mere 'thinking' or simple mental 'observation', and includes all of the correspondences normally associated with Yogic Samyama...i.e. Concentration, Meditation, and Mystical Union with God.
Specific Prayer Practices which focus on Total Absorption in God via the continuous inward repetition of the prayer...such as the Orthodox 'Prayer of the Heart'...'The Jesus Prayer'...or any of the various Western Christian 'Litanies'...are often referred to as 'Contemplative Prayer' since the serious practice of such Prayer Devotions naturally leads the contemplative practitioner to a meditative state of total absorption in God.
Additionally, Eremetical Monastics...i.e. Hermit Monks or Religious Recluses, both male and female, who live in seclusion, either alone or in isolated religious communities in order to devote themselves to a Silent Spiritual Life, are generally referred to as 'Spiritual Contemplatives' or 'Monastic Contemplatives'.
Hari OM!
Doc |
Edited by - Doc on Dec 19 2006 11:10:24 AM |
|
|
|
VIL
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - Dec 19 2006 : 1:21:16 PM
|
quote:
Kirtman: However, per the etymological info posted above, I find it easier to imagine God (or "a Godlike entity", or "Infinite Intelligence", or "The One", or "the deluded confluence of concepts that Kirtanman's ego
LOL. Funny, Kirtman.
And so true that there are a lot of ways to skin a fish and I often feel the same way.
Reminds me of this:
http://www.bahai-library.com/books/...ophy.08.html
[A talk held on Sunday Evening, February 17, 1913 — Pasteur Monnier's Theological Seminary, Paris (The audience was composed of professors, clergy and theological students)].
Abdul Baha to Pastuer Monnier:
quote:
It is said that once John of Chrysostom was walking along the seashore thinking over the question of the trinity and trying to reconcile it with finite reason; his attention was attracted to a boy sitting on the shore putting water into a cup. Approaching him, he said, "My child, what art thou doing?" "I am trying to put the sea into this cup," was the answer. "How foolish art thou," said John, "in trying to do the impossible." The child replied, "Thy work is stranger than mine, for thou art laboring to bring within the grasp of human intellect the conception of the trinity."
No wonder we get confused <VIL holding cup>: LOL:
quote:
Within the oldest extant Christian Traditions...namely Greek Orthodox Catholic, Roman Catholic, and Anglican Catholic...the term 'Contemplation' is used synonymously with the term 'Meditation' in other Spiritual Traditions. It embraces alot more spiritual meaning than mere 'thinking' or simple mental 'observation', and includes all of the correspondences normally associated with Yogic Samyama...i.e. Concentration, Meditation, and Mystical Union with God.
Specific Prayer Practices which focus on Total Absorption in God via the continuous inward repetition of the prayer...such as the Orthodox 'Prayer of the Heart'...'The Jesus Prayer'...or any of the various Western Christian 'Litanies'...are often referred to as 'Contemplative Prayer' since the serious practice of such Prayer Devotions naturally leads the contemplative practitioner to a meditative state of total absorption in God.
Additionally, Eremetical Monastics...i.e. Hermit Monks or Religious Recluses, both male and female, who live in seclusion, either alone or in isolated religious communities in order to devote themselves to a Silent Spiritual Life, are generally referred to as 'Spiritual Contemplatives' or 'Monastic Contemplatives'.
Hari OM!
Doc
Great, informative, post Doc:
VIL |
Edited by - VIL on Dec 19 2006 1:35:12 PM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Dec 19 2006 : 6:02:53 PM
|
Hi everyone,
This is a really great topic….
quote:
Kirtanman wrote:
However, per the etymological info posted above, I find it easier to imagine God (or "a Godlike entity", or "Infinite Intelligence", or "The One", or "the deluded confluence of concepts that Kirtanman's ego could agree might potentially resemble a Supreme-Being-ish type of entity") ....
A. Gazing attentively
B. Observing
It is interesting you should say this Kirtanman, because I have always wondered about the connection between God and consciousness/ awareness (well… since I was about 16 anyway). You see if God is actually eternal, infinite, omniscient (all knowing) and omnipresent (all-seeing), as most people who believe in God say he is, then one thing that you can be sure about, is that right now, God is looking out at the world from behind your eyes. What is more, if the idea that all-is-one is true, then the idea that there are two of you in there, is mistaken.
I find this view of God useful, as it makes it more immediate, and more intimate. Namely, that the divine (Brahman) is something that shines through the eyes of all living things (Jivatman), which is identical to pure divine consciousness (Purusha), and which eternally creates and supports all of manifest creation (Prakriti). Sometimes when I look into the eyes of another person, I think I can see the light of God. Of course this would mean that we are (eternal) spiritual beings (temporarily) manifest in human bodies, and that the universe is not something that we are in, but rather something that we contain, and which is manifest through us, or possibly, with our (partial or complete) collaboration.
Or to put it another way, that the divine spirit (The Holy Spirit) is put forth from the light of the Divine (The Father) and manifests all of creation (The Son), (whilst simultaneously, and rather mystically, The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit remain one), and that we (humans on earth) contain (or rather are) sparks of that Spirit (our outward form) and that Light (our consciousness).
I cannot rationalize the descriptions given of God in the scriptures, with our existential position in any other way.
This view helps me to understand some of the more enigmatic “I Am” sayings of Jesus Christ:
“I am the way, the truth and the light”, being I am the light of divine consciousness, the shining.
“I am that I am”, being I am eternal consciousness.
“I and my Father are one”, being that Brahman eternally contains and is, both the light of God (Purusha, the divine soul), and his manifest creation (Prakriti) without being separated through the act of creation.
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, before Abraham was, I am”, being I am the divine consciousness that exists always, before the manifestation of time.
It is interesting (to me anyway), that when Jesus talked about who he was (which he seemed to do quite a bit), he didn’t mention love. I once heard about a Sufi teacher who lived in Northern India, who was asked about the end game in meditation and whether or not it was divine love. He didn’t want to talk about it, but finally when he had been asked three times (you always have to ask divine masters three times in India for some unknown reason), he finally said “there is a state beyond love”.
quote:
There are only two ways: Continually ask “Who am I”, or simply surrender.
Ramana Maharshi
Christi
|
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Dec 19 2006 : 7:29:20 PM
|
Thanks, VIL!
St. John Chrysostom revised and edited the very lengthy original Divine Liturgy of St. James (Step-Brother of Jesus) from around 3+ hours in length to about 90 minutes in length. Nowadays, 'The Divine Liturgy Of Our Father Among The Saints: St. John Chrysostom' is the primary Ritual-Ceremonial Service or Liturgical Rite celebrated in Orthodox Christian Churches worldwide on every Sunday and most major Feast Days throughout the year. Since Orthodox Services and Prayer Devotions are normally done standing...a remnant of the Jewish Tradition from which Christianity sprang...the rank and file Church members were...and still are...very grateful to St. John Chrysostom for his merciful efforts!
Here's a Greek Icon of St. John Chrysostom:
http://www.chrysostom.org/images/chrysostom37.jpg
A short biography of his life:
http://www.chrysostom.org/life.html
And a sample of his writing:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF1-09/noharm.html
Hari OM!
Doc
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
SYMBOLS
