• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God About To Undergo Gender Reassignment Surgery

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
Rather, more how I've come to see it is that what "heaven" is, who we are in that state, is fully possible right here and now.
I don't think we can inhabit both our physical reality and the true ecstatic union. We can live in union with God, but to push beyond into the furthest depths I believe we both agree exist, we have to shed our physical existence. Something that I believe has happened to living people who have experienced assumption.

I find looking to an "afterlife" to be a distraction from the Eternal in every present moment.
I fully agree.

Theism tends more to too removed from the world, too aloof. God is far too much Present to be wholly transcendent save for a few miracles here and there dotted throughout history.
I again agree with you, at least in principle, I just don't see my Theism as contradictory to that notion. The idea of "up there" is allegorical to the spiritual in my understanding. God is omnipresent, which means he's fully present in all, down to a true atomic unit.

As far as "separation" goes, my view is that the only thing separating us from God is our perceptual sense of self. We see ourselves as separate from others, and we imagine God as some entity "out there" like an "other", and that becomes the reality of our experience. Until we let God accidently come blasting through some crack we allowed. Then the Light that shines there tells you in no uncertain terms, God was never anywhere but fully Present the whole time.
I was asking what you mean by separation itself, not what you believe separates us. When I say I am other than God, I mean that I don't share ontological identification with the divine. Not that he isn't present with us. I agree with you on that completely.

As far as "separation" goes, my view is that the only thing separating us from God is our perceptual sense of self.
I get the feeling that we may be coming at the same thing and using polar opposite terms. I could be wrong though. I'd say what separates us from God is losing our intended selves. It is when we surrender some part of ourselves, our goodness, our rationality, our emotionality and embrace that which isn't the perfect that we look around and see ourselves alone. It is when we still ourselves and find the I/ego/self given by God, and drive towards it, and eventually simply be, that we become aware of God with us.

We don't see, because we are turned inward facing our own mind and thoughts, looking to them to see God; the right idea, the right concept, the right belief, the right practice, stopping this or that, etc.
I suggest that the right faith, idea, concept, belief, practice, behavior, etc. are complementary to the mystical. The presence of God demands, it demands action, thought, belief and faith. With faith in fact being of more import than mysticism. The mystic who has lit upon the divine but doesn't believe in and isn't moved by the willful God is not closer to God than the steel worker who has faith, in a God he's never had a mystical experience with, to share in love and joy.

That is an incorrect assumption. If I said anything that sounds like that, it certainly doesn't reflective my thinking.
All of what I believed to be true, was an illusion.
Maybe I took it incorrectly. How could you explain, for instance, what you call my deity mystical experience bolstering the self-god distinction being authentic when you also say that a 'higher level' mystical experience leads to the self being illusion and promotes panentheism?

That's depressing. Not unexpected, but still. God in my experience is the author of confidence, and I have so far seen only where He has built upon prior knowledge and understanding imparted. In my life God has shown me that He exists, then that Christianity is true, then led me to being Catholic(something I Jonah'ed for quite a while), and now leads me to deeper and more fruitful, I believe, understandings of the faith He set down for man. There has never been a negation of what came before.

I don't want to go the route of debating sources at this point, rather I would point to my own personal experiences.
That wasn't my intention. I was merely attempting to illustrate that this isn't an area where 'research' comes to fast and hard conclusions and that I don't have much regard for claims that specific conclusions are 'higher level' spirituality. I can only point to my experiences with the divine and what they have revealed to me.

Yes, and critics there were! This is what happens when one pushes beyond the bounds of acceptable theologies the scholars have decided teach us of God.
You seem to have missed my point, Meister Eckhart maintained that he never went beyond the bounds of acceptable theology; that his views were firmly rooted in the truth of Christ as upheld by the Catholic faith.

Well, I'm not sure where you have gotten the idea I am claiming superior insight.
You specifically said that you categorized my spiritual experience and understanding as "deity mysticism" and below the non-dualistic mysticism that you experience and understand which is "at the top". That is superiority.


Off the rails was for dramatic effect; maybe you don't see it this way, but I believe we are close in our ideas and it is in some, significant, minutia we find our disagreement.
Interestingly, as I was typing this just now, I recall a quote I read from Meister Eckhart probably about 6 years ago I used to love, but had not thought of in years. Let me quote this and see if you see the same thing I just said about breathing as one.

"The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love."
That is absolutely beautiful, and absolutely true. One breath. One heart. One mind. One seeing. One knowing. One love. "I am my Father, are One".
It is indeed beautiful and true. Him and I, as one. But, still, Him and I. The unity of God doesn't eradicate the individuality of the participants. The ego/self doesn't die in death, it is perfected; in the perfection, unity. Separate in essence we willfully join with God in one existence.

I think there is something that may help get past the understanding that the self "dissolves" into God.
I'm going to try to make a few more straightforward statements to ensure I haven't lost what you are really saying in the imagery we choose to use.

When I join the union with God, my "I", my personage, my separate identity remains. I will still be Mister Emu, perfectly connected with God, whom I am not. We, God, and all extant men and spiritual beings, will all be joined into one unified existence thus. We retain our ontological separation, we don't fuse into one being.

The way I've so far read you, is largely on the side of our identities and essential natures are included in the unification "the ego/self dies at death" "our identity is dissolved in God" "I find that God is not other to me", etc. Something like henosis? If I have read you incorrectly, please let me know.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
Perhaps because of the idolatry thing?
What?

Women are often viewed as objects
Really?

I answered that post long ago with my understanding that the evocative nature of certain masculine analagous relationships better captures that reality of our relationship with God.

Specifically, take mother. A woman carrying her child within herself, who produces from within and of herself. But, God used His energy to produce outside of himself something(s) completely other than himself. It is thus more evocatively accurate (not perfectly) to think of Father-creator as opposed to Mother-creator. Mother is more likely to produce error in thinking we are of God instead of from God, that we share His essence/type/being, than Father.

But, I wouldn't burn you at the stake, even metaphorically, for saying Mother, and anyone who would is as likely to be ego-driven as the people who need to see feminine or gender neutral language.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Perhaps because of the idolatry thing? (Women are often viewed as objects, which is idolatry in itself. Apply this to god.) *passes Windwalker some popcorn*
:) Hmm... that's an interesting thought I'm going to chew on for awhile.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
Perhaps because of the idolatry thing? (Women are often viewed as objects, which is idolatry in itself. Apply this to god.) *passes Windwalker some popcorn*


Which may account for the nutty way that women are blamed for the failings of men, even in non-Islamic cultures.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
Which may account for the nutty way that women are blamed for the failings of men, even in non-Islamic cultures.
[satire] *Shhhh* We don't want to make the Satanists flip out over the suggestion that Satan is female. ;) [/satire]
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I don't think we can inhabit both our physical reality and the true ecstatic union. We can live in union with God, but to push beyond into the furthest depths I believe we both agree exist, we have to shed our physical existence. Something that I believe has happened to living people who have experienced assumption.
Why should we have to get rid of our biological bodies first? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Does it have some hooks into spirit, like tendons connecting muscles to the bone? Did not Paul speaking of himself in 3rd person say, "I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter."? It seems shedding the body is not a requirement, though I'm sure it helps not having it around as a distraction, it's apparently not necessary.

I again agree with you, at least in principle, I just don't see my Theism as contradictory to that notion. The idea of "up there" is allegorical to the spiritual in my understanding. God is omnipresent, which means he's fully present in all, down to a true atomic unit.
Then that is more panentheistic. While Christianity is called a theistic religion, and many do see God is purely dualistic terms, the Incarnation, the Holy Spirit, and so forth is definitely the immanent God. Yet, they say otherwise? It confuses me. Theism is that God is wholly transcendent, "other" to the world.

Yes, you are right Omnipresent means there is nowhere God is not. If there is a gap in Infinity, it's not Infinity anymore. God is in us. No gaps. God is omnipresent. Hence, why separation is an illusion. It can't be real. That would make God a finite "being", like us.

I was asking what you mean by separation itself, not what you believe separates us. When I say I am other than God, I mean that I don't share ontological identification with the divine. Not that he isn't present with us. I agree with you on that completely.
Let me see if I can't peel this mystery back a little and see what may be going on. I agree that I don't share an ontological identification with the divine, because God is not an entity. God is not a "being". God is the Source of all being. All being arises from God, the Formless Source. Being is form. Being has an ontological reality. But God is not a "creature," as Eckhart used the term.

Entities or beings have separate existences in a dualistic reality, a reality of divisions. Yet, you cannot divide God into a separate form, and expect any form anywhere to continue to exist. To quote what I did earlier again,

"But this is not God as an ontological other, set apart from the cosmos, from humans, and from creation at large... 'It is the emptiness of everything which allows the identification to take place - the emptiness [which means "transcendental openness" or "nonobstruction"] which is in us coming together with the emptiness which is the deity."​

So to understand the Reality of God, you cannot divide God into "here and there" statements, such as "inside" or "outside". While both are true statements from a dualistic perspective, from a nondual perspective there is no inside or outside, truly. "Transcendental Openness" doesn't have boundaries which create divisions like this.

This does not mean that form does not exist. Form does exist, but it is not separate from God, or that "transcendent openness". In the Heart Sutra it says, "Form is not other than emptiness, emptiness is not other than form." The familiar analogy is that of water and the wave. The wave is not "other" to the water, and the water is not "other" to the wave. "Emptiness" or "transcendent openness" is the Source of all that arises and falls back into itself. God is in this sense both the Ground and the Goal, the point of origin and return; the Source and the Summit.

What Emptiness really means is empty of a separate self. It does not have a separate independent existence from God. It does not mean the form does not exist. It does not mean the form "you", or Mr. Emu, has no reality. It means the idea or perception you are, or can be separate from God has no reality. The world of "separation" from the Source, is the illusion, the non-reality. It does not mean our existence is not real.

This is the reason why in Awakening experiences, the most common thing expressed is "It was there the whole time", or "It was never anywhere else but fully already here, beyond any imagining". These were my own words.

I'd say what separates us from God is losing our intended selves. It is when we surrender some part of ourselves, our goodness, our rationality, our emotionality and embrace that which isn't the perfect that we look around and see ourselves alone.
I am not going to disagree with this. I would rephrase it myself to say, when we believe non-reality as reality, we become unaware of the Truth.

I have this visualization that comes into my mind when processing this phenomenon. I see in my mind's eye this world full of individuals all sitting on top of their own personal lily pads, floating at different levels of buoyancy within this vast open space like a separate island universes with this spherical bubble above each of them creating a self-contained reality that is "theirs." It is a separate reality of their own imaginations. We hear each other from our own "pods" as it were, yet we filter their reality through the structures of our own bubbles. They take on the characteristics of our imaginations, reflecting that back to us, keeping us safe and secure in this "known" reality of our own truths.

In my 2nd experience when I was much younger, that I'd mentioned before, the experience was such that the universe was abruptly exposed to me, instantly pulling back that veil, or that "sphere" I described above, to reveal Truth. Everything radiated pure Light and Love, from everything, to everything, through everything in a living, vibrant, unimaginable dance of Life. Everything was fully Life.

Each blade of grass, every molecule of air, every ray of sunlight, was of the same, Radiant Reality. What I beheld before me, then began to well up from an unimaginable depth from within me beyond any comprehension, and came gushing forth like a torrent of Love from the Wellspring of Life itself, consuming me. That Love and Life that was in everything, was in me, fully Realized and experienced in my being. A word I like to use based on this, and subsequent experiences, is that of "exchange". "From everything, to everything, through everything, through me, to me, from me." The Source is everywhere, and nowhere separate, all places equally full and whole, including in us. The entire Reality of God, is in each individual hair of our own body, and every form that exist. We are made "whole" in God, means we have Realized the Self.

What particularly, paradoxically I also experienced at that time, and subsequently, is that as I was walking along and saw other people as they approached me on the sidewalk, I could see that Energy that is Life itself radiating from them brilliantly, that was in all else in the world I saw and experienced in my very own being as a person. I was beaming Absolute Love from my person as they approached. Then, I saw something unexpected. I saw them each inside a world of their own thoughts. Each of the three of them were inside a separate reality inside their own heads, inside their own mind. I remember thinking to myself in genuine confusion, yet with absolute Compassion in my heart, "How do they not see this?" It's who there were! It was all around them and coming from them! And yet, they were utterly oblivious to it! It was right there, and they didn't see it! How? How could they not see?

That was when I was a very naive 18 year old young man, who to that point in his life had no knowledge of such things. I had no training. No practices. No understanding. No religious backgrounds. No preconceptions. This was all purely spontaneous in the middle of the day, like a great light switch had been flipped of itself without any intention on my part.

My point in all of that was to illustrate what I mean when I now use this metaphor of little island bubble realities, each of sitting on this floating lily pads of our own we construct reality around us to keep us contained and "safe" from the Unknown "out there". The world looks real to us, just like it did each of those three people I saw walking together towards me back then, each inside their own realities inside their own minds, and not seeing the Truth that was them and everything they saw, but did not see.

We don't "disappear" as an individual. The illusion the bubble universe of our mind is the Truth, disappears. The "separate self" disappears. The illusion that we are separate from Source, dissolves as the non-reality it always was.

It is when we still ourselves and find the I/ego/self given by God, and drive towards it, and eventually simply be, that we become aware of God with us.
Have you become aware of God within you? After that first experience of that at 18, I sought out religion to help understand this (that didn't work out all that terribly well ;) ). But during that time I did find certain scriptures which did express this well for me. One of those primarily was when Jesus said, "He that believes in me, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." That is a very good description of that experience. It came up from the depths of the Eternal, consumed my separate self, and became my being. I became Aware of the Divine Reality in this body. I became Real. I became truly Alive. "I live, and yet not I, but Christ in me.". It is not just God with you, but God in you.

This is the paradox, that our minds which sees ourselves and reality in terms of division, cannot see. We remain a unique living human being with body and mind, yet never separate from the Eternal Life that gives rise to our very being itself. It is impossible to be separated from the Source, like the wave is not separate from the Ocean out of which it becomes a wave. That is only a created reality of the mind that does not exist beyond our own imaginations. Separation is an illusion of the mind.


I wish to continue my response to you later as time permits, so if you could hold off a response until I complete that, I would appreciate it. I do want to say thank you however for this discussion. I appreciate and value it more than you may realize. This is rare to talk with someone who I know is coming from something far more real than just beliefs they have adopted as placeholder for experience. I can talk as one with experience to someone else with experience of their own, and that's great!
 
Last edited:

allfoak

Alchemist
Clearly, feminine imagery was acceptable among the first followers of Jesus.
source
If we could restore that concept it would be a good beginning to restoring the original meaning of the gospels.
We have known this since the discovery of the dead sea scrolls and what is called the Nag Hammadi library.
Much of which was banned or discouraged reading by those running the politics of religion.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I suggest that the right faith, idea, concept, belief, practice, behavior, etc. are complementary to the mystical. The presence of God demands, it demands action, thought, belief and faith. With faith in fact being of more import than mysticism. The mystic who has lit upon the divine but doesn't believe in and isn't moved by the willful God is not closer to God than the steel worker who has faith, in a God he's never had a mystical experience with, to share in love and joy.
I'm a bit confused in how you see some things here. I cannot fathom a mystic who is not in tune with the "Will" of God. God is Reality, and they are Awake to Reality. How can they not "believe in" or be moved by God? I also don't see how faith is somehow "more important than mysticism". How can you have the latter without the former? I don't understand that. You don't mean faith in propositional belief statements, do you?

Maybe I took it incorrectly. How could you explain, for instance, what you call my deity mystical experience bolstering the self-god distinction being authentic when you also say that a 'higher level' mystical experience leads to the self being illusion and promotes panentheism?
Why wouldn't it be authentic? Why does saying there is further levels or stages say that some earlier stage in authentic? That's not a healthy way to understand natural growth structures. That's like saying 13 is "better than" being 5, and now that I'm 13, nothing about my life experience when I was 5 was authentic. Why would I do that? Do you say that to yourself about your previous experiences of life before you had subsequent, deeper and riches experiences later in life? That's not realistic, or valid itself to do that.

BTW, I still have very valid and authentic states of what is categorically understood as deity-mysticism. I also experience states of deep nature-mysticism as well. There is nothing inauthentic about any of them.

Also, regarding my saying, "All of what I believed to be true, was an illusion," was not said in the context of saying my previous beliefs were not valid because I have different beliefs now. The context was, "Encountering God, makes all that go away, and lets only that which is True, remain.". That is absolutely true, and I would say it would have been for you as well. A mental image of reality, encounter actual Reality at the level of God, pretty much makes anything we thought we knew about Truth blow away like leaves on a tree when we come "face to face". Everything we projected on the screen of God from our minds, is revealed for what they are. Just thoughts. And that we believed they were what was real, is found to be an illusion.

Did your experience show you otherwise? Did your experience of God confirm everything you'd believed all along, and it was just like you imagined? I'm asking not being entirely serious, as I sincerely doubt you would answer yes.

That's depressing. Not unexpected, but still. God in my experience is the author of confidence, and I have so far seen only where He has built upon prior knowledge and understanding imparted.
I am quite confident in God. I am not confident in how I perceive reality with my mind using my ideas and beliefs as the guide to knowing Truth as it is. I don't see what is depressing about that. That's liberating. Not to have to be "right", to "achieve God" or something. Resting in Spirit, is not done with the rational mind.

In my life God has shown me that He exists, then that Christianity is true, then led me to being Catholic(something I Jonah'ed for quite a while), and now leads me to deeper and more fruitful, I believe, understandings of the faith He set down for man. There has never been a negation of what came before.
Why do you assume as you grow that you invalidate what came before? Is this what you've been doing with your own history? I might suggest that is not a good or healthy, or realistic thing to do. I have been guilty of that myself with myself, and that is not valid of me to do that at all. I wasn't an "idiot" when I thought and believed one way or another in my youth. I was me, where I was at. That was perfectly valid and appropriate for that time.

We never "negate" what came before. We transcend, and include. All we "negate" is that operating at the stage that came before as we move into an integrate the new stage that follows. We bring with us the important truths of that previous stage, and hold them at a new and higher level of understanding. We all do this in our lives. You've done this in yours. You will continue to in the future. We should never discount the lessons and truths of our earlier selves. Each brings a gift of truth to the whole.

You seem to have missed my point, Meister Eckhart maintained that he never went beyond the bounds of acceptable theology; that his views were firmly rooted in the truth of Christ as upheld by the Catholic faith.
But many obviously didn't think he did. To him it did. Just as how I am speaking of God is in how I understand the Christian faith, to be compatible with it. But the problem is that even though we can point to the same symbols, how we are understanding it will vary. There is no "right interpretation". Only multiple perspectives, and experience will greatly dictate the contexts.

You specifically said that you categorized my spiritual experience and understanding as "deity mysticism" and below the non-dualistic mysticism that you experience and understand which is "at the top". That is superiority.
Above and below in these types of natural hierarchical structures has nothing to do with "superior and inferior", better of worse, valid or invalid. Those are power hierarchies, social structures. Not natural growth hierarchies. They are instead nested, like bigger bowls holding smaller bowls, and bigger bowls still holding all of those. They embrace and hold everything. They don't do battle with each other and boast from their little egos, "I'm better than you because I'm bigger!". That's childish. With bigger bowls, hopefully you won't see the little bowl speak of the pre-puberty bowls. :) If you do of course, then that's a problem. They aren't really inhabiting that "higher stage" very well.

I admire those who I can tell are at higher stages than me. I don't accuse them of being arrogant. That would be a projection of my own insecurities. They have no such thought about me themselves. That's only my thought, such as it is.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
@Windwalker

I'm on a family vacation this weekend, so I'll have to wait until Monday to respond. Didn't want you think I was ignoring your post.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
@Windwalker

I'm on a family vacation this weekend, so I'll have to wait until Monday to respond. Didn't want you think I was ignoring your post.
Sure, no problem. Thanks for letting me know. I realized there were a couple points I didn't respond to, so I'll take advantage of the wait to finish those. If for no other reason it helps for clarification points. I realize we'll have to focus in a few of all of these points in order to keep this conversation from exploding in size exponentially.

It is indeed beautiful and true. Him and I, as one. But, still, Him and I. The unity of God doesn't eradicate the individuality of the participants. The ego/self doesn't die in death, it is perfected; in the perfection, unity. Separate in essence we willfully join with God in one existence.
I think we may be struggling with our uses of the term "ego" here. The egoic self I am speaking of is not your unique individuality. A particular tree in the forest is a unique individual tree and will always be that. But if it were to have an imagination about itself, an image of itself from its own mind that it creates and identifies itself as to itself, then that is not its true identity. This is its "egoic self", a collection of thoughts and ideas that it identifies itself as. The "egoic self" is an artificial creation of the mind.

There is this perfect saying that captures this about the ego-self: "You are not who you think you are. You are not even who others think you are. You are who you think others think you are." This is the egoic self. And that is a false projection, an illusion of reality, a mis-identification of your true Self by the mind. It is that, which dies in death along with all other illusions of the mind. That ego self does not survive death. If it is remembered, it would be more like, "I remember I used to believe that is who I was".

I'll add here, that meditation is really practicing death. Meditation is the practice of "letting go", of everything, as in death. You can see past that egoic-self image here and now, while you're still alive. You can see "face to face" and "know even as I am known", here and now. That is realized by "dying to your small 'self"". That theme of death and resurrection is very clear in the Christian story. We are "born again", meaning we Wake up to who we truly are, which is not this small egoic self.

The issue I have with the ideas that we will all just be this personality I identify with as "me" continuing on into the "afterlife" (which there really is no such thing as Life has no before or after states), is that it really amounts to an immortality project; an avoidance of letting go. It is the ego itself in its own mind trying to project a survival after death. It's an addiction to itself it tries to imagine no end to, because it absolutely fears its own dissolution. That is not going to release the soul from its grips into that state where you can say, "I know even as I am known". No, all that will be known is a continuation of this mistaken self-identity.

Salvation" does not translate into "preservation". Not in the least. A full surrender of everything, including clinging to and trying to preserve your own self image does. Salvation is "release". It is the full and completely "letting go" of everything you cling to and try to preserve. "I'm not going to die! I'm going to come back, only a fixed and better version of me where everything will be right now," is not surrendering. It is a projection of the ego of itself continuing. In death, we take off all those clothes and stand naked before Truth. We will see we are not who we thought we were.

I'm going to try to make a few more straightforward statements to ensure I haven't lost what you are really saying in the imagery we choose to use.

When I join the union with God, my "I", my personage, my separate identity remains. I will still be Mister Emu, perfectly connected with God, whom I am not. We, God, and all extant men and spiritual beings, will all be joined into one unified existence thus. We retain our ontological separation, we don't fuse into one being.
Correct, we do not fuse into one being. We are differentiated and Self Aware. We are not in slumber or ignorance, which would be that "fusion", like the way an infant if undifferentiated from the world. There is Awareness. That is the condition of that existence. But there is no more illusion, that we are "separate from God or others". We are fully Aware that God is One, and God is all that God creates. The tree is the tree, but it is not separated from the Source. It never was, nor ever can be. This is the same with us as individuals.

This is a paradoxical truth. Anytime you try to use language to speak of the Infinite or the Absolute, it will always break down into self-contradictions. This is the limit of dualitist thought, not the limit of God or Reality. Nonduality is able to hold such paradoxes as true, unproblematically, even though in a linear dualistic reality, it does not compute. It just becomes something you "know", beyond the logic of the mind. Dialectical thought, has an upper limit, than can and must be transcended that overcomes us turning God into a contradiction of reality though our insistence on the language we use and the categories we think in, as the standard of Truth. That reality conditioned by language, is an illusion of the mind. The egoic self, is a reflection of language too.

The way I've so far read you, is largely on the side of our identities and essential natures are included in the unification "the ego/self dies at death" "our identity is dissolved in God" "I find that God is not other to me", etc. Something like henosis? If I have read you incorrectly, please let me know.
Each perspective has some piece of the truth. And while I can see certain things ring true from them, it does not mean I identify with them as a whole. In looking at what Henosis is, I found this statement in Wiki.

"All division is reconciled in the one, the final stage before reaching singularity, called duality (dyad), is completely reconciled in the Monad, Source or One (see monism).

.......

Plotinus' works have an ascetic character in that they reject matter as an illusion (non-existent). Matter was strictly treated as immanent, with matter as essential to its being, having no true or transcendential character or essence, substance or ousia."
If I am understanding what I'm reading above, this does not reflect my thinking. Matter is real. Matter does exist. God is both the One, and the Many. The above is reflective of Monism, which I've said previously is simply a subtle form of dualism itself, as Nagarjuna pointed out. God is both the One, and the Many. That is nonduality, the Paradox of Reality. To try to conceive of the Absolute or the nature of God and Reality in dualistic terms, is a fool's errand, like trying to sing a song with a screwdriver.
 
Last edited:

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
Why should we have to get rid of our biological bodies first? That doesn't make a lot of sense.
The body has needs the must be taken care of, food, water, shelter, and we generally have to work in some manner to provide those things. Taking care of the body's needs requires mental effort and the human mind is finite. Thus it necessarily detracts from directing the mind towards the fullness of unity with God.

It also fits with the tradition of assumption, whereby certain people have in the midst of their physical life discarded the physical form and entered the heavenly state.

Yet, they say otherwise? It confuses me. Theism is that God is wholly transcendent, "other" to the world.
God and the world, all creation whether spiritual or material, are irradicably different. God is wholly other than me, I am not divine and no part of me is divine, while God is wholly divine, cannot be parted, and if He could no part would be not divine.

the Formless Source.
See I would call God the sourceless Form, He is the perfection of Form and Substance, the self-sustaining being that sources all being. He exists. God is a person, three actually, that have will and drive, that speak and act and direct.

Water takes form; the wave is the form the water takes. The divine substance takes form, that form is the Triune Godhead.

The familiar analogy is that of water and the wave. The wave is not "other" to the water, and the water is not "other" to the wave.
This does not mean that form does not exist. Form does exist, but it is not separate from God
the Source of all that arises and falls back into itself.
This is why I said by separation I meant ontological distinction from. The being that fills my form isn't the divine substance, it is the human substance quite separate from the divine.

Have you become aware of God within you? ... It is not just God with you, but God in you.
It is impossible to be separated from the Source, like the wave is not separate from the Ocean out of which it becomes a wave.
My experience with God is in direct contradiction to this. We are not the wave to the divine water, we are the land the wave is directed at.

I'm a bit confused in how you see some things here. I cannot fathom a mystic who is not in tune with the "Will" of God. God is Reality, and they are Awake to Reality. How can they not "believe in" or be moved by God?
Even the devil has had direct access to God and turned, mere knowledge or experience of God is only the beginning of the journey. You have to submit yourself to that which is fundamentally greater than you, than you are or can ever be.

God is not identifiable with reality, He is that which crafts reality; being awake to His presence doesn't necessarily mean you are moved by His will. He demands right action, and right thought and belief. His perfection in all things calls for my perfection in all things. That is my experience.

I also don't see how faith is somehow "more important than mysticism". How can you have the latter without the former? I don't understand that. You don't mean faith in propositional belief statements, do you?
I don't mean propositional statements, I mean the visceral yearning for and trust in the loving creator who personally wants to be eternally connected to you. It is from that base, not high mysticism or great learnedness, that God works our being towards and eventually into perfection.

Why wouldn't it be authentic?
Because, God is not the author of confusion. He doesn't bolster an idea to later show it to be illusion. Any "encounter with God" that involves illusion or false reality/perception is by definition inauthentic, what you encountered wasn't God.

Why does saying there is further levels or stages say that some earlier stage in authentic?
It isn't saying that there are further stages or levels, it is what you are saying about them. If some higher level imparts knowledge that directly contradicts the knowledge of a different level, such as the bolstering the self-God distinction vs tearing it down, one of the two is inauthentic. Because, God doesn't bring you the false with His presence, He doesn't teach it, and He doesn't impart it.

Did your experience show you otherwise? Did your experience of God confirm everything you'd believed all along, and it was just like you imagined? I'm asking not being entirely serious, as I sincerely doubt you would answer yes.
I am specifically only referring to experience with God and the knowledge that comes from those experiences. Never once has any of my experiences with God not confirmed what every other experience with God has shown. Not once has a belief stemming from a divine encounter been a natural progression leading to another, contradictory, belief.

Why do you assume as you grow that you invalidate what came before?
I'm assuming the opposite. That true growth in God invalidates nothing of what came before during true growth in God. If you really experience God, and not something else, then if you again experience God there will be no contradiction, nothing of that first experience will be shown to be illusion, or false, or anything of the sort. If God shows no separation between Him and I, I won't later encounter God as separate, and vice versa.

I wasn't an "idiot" when I thought and believed one way or another in my youth. I was me, where I was at.
There is a difference between negation and derogation. Gaining a new insight doesn't mean I was an idiot before, but if it contravenes some previous claim of knowledge, it has negated it.

But many obviously didn't think he did.
Maybe you are one of those, but again, he did not. Eckhart, by his words, never denied Orthodox Christianity. In Christian Mysticism we see the truth meet with the direct experience of God in a most wonderful union.

I admire those who I can tell are at higher stages than me.
There have been several wonderful spiritual people who have led me to greater depths of relationship to God, and I don't begrudge them a bit for being guides and mentors to me over the years.

I'll leave it thus, the hierarchy you proposed rings essentially false to me, I do not believe it accurately reflects spiritual growth.

I think we may be struggling with our uses of the term "ego" here.
Possibly. When I say the ego, I mean the self, your identity, or the "you". It is not the thoughts but the "I" behind them, the person thinking the thoughts. That person is going to die, and then that person is going to be reborn in truth and light. Salvation doesn't mean preservation, but it also doesn't mean destruction. It is a purification we could never accomplish on our own. Saving what is worth saving and restoring what has been damaged and diseased.

Who you are isn't an illusion, you are that person and your failings aren't false. Petty, spiteful, wrathful, lustful, hating, envious, etc. Your sins are the things you chose and made yourself to be. Under the light of God you can't hide from it and can't pretend it isn't real. You must have change to become the you who should have been, death and rebirth. The self must be given up unto death so that it might become something greater. Becoming is a drastic change, you die, but through grace and love you are not obliterated, but reborn into a perfectly human you. You give yourself up and God gives you back, because God desires you to be.

We are fully Aware that God is One, and God is all that God creates.
We're going to disagree. As I have said before, my experiences with God have always reinforced the difference between God and creation. God is not His creation, and His creation isn't God. We are different, distinct, and ontologically separate.

There was a lot to get to, if you think I missed responding to something important let me know. I enjoy this discussion a lot, it has helped me greatly to refine how I express the experiences with God I have been given and in that clarify how they have impacted me.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I've taken a break from our discussion because I've been spending much time pondering the things we've touched upon. I'll see if I can't pick up some thoughts now from here with a little more focus.

God and the world, all creation whether spiritual or material, are irradicably different. God is wholly other than me, I am not divine and no part of me is divine, while God is wholly divine, cannot be parted, and if He could no part would be not divine.
As I've pointed out before, to be separate from God is a non-reality. The Infinite cannot have gaps or holes and still be considered infinite; Omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscience. God is not a block of swiss cheese, with us hanging out in the holes where the cheese does not exist. Apart from God, there is no existence.

Either we define God as a separate being, a "creature", which would be consistent with what you are suggesting, or we acknowledge the Allness of God and we have to grapple with why it is that while God is everywhere, which of course includes inside us as well, we do not sense or experience it that way. The latter has actual, accessible answers, while the former is a non-reality which denies the Absoluteness of God.

See I would call God the sourceless Form, He is the perfection of Form and Substance, the self-sustaining being that sources all being. He exists. God is a person, three actually, that have will and drive, that speak and act and direct.

Water takes form; the wave is the form the water takes. The divine substance takes form, that form is the Triune Godhead.
To me this is where things get really interesting. I would say God is non-being, out of which being arises. However, as the Trinity formulation points at, this form arising from God is not "other to God", but IS God manifesting. That is what John's Logos is portrayed as. Logos is the Manifestor of the Infinite, formless, unknowable God, being manifest in form. When you see form, that is Logos expressing the Infinite formless Source into being.

The "mediator" between being and non-being, between form and formlessness is what Logos is. Logos is the Agent of creation, as John clearly expresses in the prologue of his Gospel. But not as a created being, a "creature", but as God expressing itself into, in, and through form. Logos is not other to God, nor is what is created through Logos "outside" Logos. There is never a point where creation separates out from Divinity, but instead creation radiates the singular Divinity in all form.

Logos is that Form, that expresses, reveals, manifests, and radiates the Infinite Formless Divine Godhead. "The Logos was God", making the Divine Reality, reality. "The invisible things of him through creation are clearly seen and made known, even his eternal power and Godhead". Logos manifests the Formless, unknowable God, into knowable form. The Holy Spirit is that which flows from God, through Logos, into form. "Father, Son, Holy Spirit". There is no separation, anywhere, no swiss-cheese Divinity.

This is why I said by separation I meant ontological distinction from. The being that fills my form isn't the divine substance, it is the human substance quite separate from the divine.
Then what gives it its being? Itself? Are you the Source of your own existence? Did you create yourself?

My experience with God is in direct contradiction to this. We are not the wave to the divine water, we are the land the wave is directed at.
And this is where I really wanted to spend the bulk of our ongoing discussion. Where you see a contradiction, I see simply different perspectives of the Divine Reality. I see different realization of Truth in various states and stages of our individual forms.

I'm going to come back to my own initial Awakening experience when I was 18 and flesh out some more detail that might help communicate what I am seeing. While there were two different experiences a few days apart, and while the "content" of them were different, they were both, undeniably Absolute. I'm sure you understand that unmistakable nature of the Divine from your own experience. The reality of it, is beyond all question and doubt. I understand, recognize, and of course respect that.

The first of these was an experience of my own death. I faced entering into and through that door of my own perceived, or rather dreaded fear of my own non-existence. I was plunging fully aware into utter non-being, and then in an instantaneous "blink", I moved from utter blackness into Absolute Light. There was "nothing", in the sense of no form. No "thing" was present. It was just absolute utterly pure Light and Love and Stillness. Fear was a non-reality. I was "beholding" Infinity, and what seemed as a sliver of infinity which was an infinity in itself, of an infinite "infinities" beyond, each infinite in themselves, of the same Infinite that was all of these that was itself Infinite, forever and ever. There are no words that can approach expressing this.

This then manifest to my mind as "Mind" which "looked" at me, and held me with Absolute Infinite Power, with Absolute Grace. Again, no words will suffice. I then heard to my mind my name "spoken" in this indescribable warmth and love of absolute compassion and Grace, and my entire life from childhood on passed before my awareness, with this new realization that at no point was I ever outside of this which now held me in its Being and Presence, despite my not seeing of it, and living my life in fear and the sense of separation and aloneness.

All this was outside of time itself. Time had ceased at that instant I passed through the black "hole" into that Light. And in what seemed afterwards like perhaps only a few seconds had passed, I was "back" in this body and the life of my mind and person I was prior to this moment of "enlightenment", you could call that.

That started the ball rolling and I struggled to understand this from where I was at and the abrupt and stunning change of reality that had befallen me. This then led to my 2nd experience, or what one would rather better understand as "part 2" of the same Awakening. The first part could be understood as the experience of death. The 2nd part, ironically a few days later, that of resurrection from death.

In that experience, I was not "outside time" or outside the body. On the contrary I was walking outside, but inside my head, separate from the world, trying to figure out this grand Mystery that I had encountered, lost in thought, not present in my body, which at the time was my normal waking state. What unfolded again happened without warning, and that exact same Absolute Love, and Light, Being, Life, Grace, Power, Compassion, now became seen by my waking eyes in everything that exists. Every blade of grass, every molecule of air, the light from the sun, the breeze, every object all radiated that Divine Reality that I had found myself awakened to a mere few days earlier in passing through that door of my own death.

But absent in this was that singular focused "Mind" that "saw" me, It was Spirit, and there are no words to describe this, other than Light, Life, and Love (which you'll see as my "religion" I list on my profile, for good reason). This then suddenly welled up from the most unimaginable depth of my own being, far out of any possible thought I could ever have had, and can gushing forth in a torrent of Absolute JOY. That Love, Light, and Life, which radiated from "God" and is God which I had encountered days early, now poured forth through me like a fountain, radiating every molecule of my body and mind with that same Radiance which was in everything else in the world. There was this Living exchange of that Light, Life, and Love that is both One, and Many. Form, and Formless. God and the world. Spirit and creation. There was the Timeless, within the context of time. Formlessness in Form. Spirit in Creation. The Unmanifest in the manifest.

That experience was literally, resurrection from death into Life. Now, while my mind was a bit "surprised" it didn't mirror the first experience of God, since that was Absolute, it became clear that it was not a "contradiction" to the first, but a different realization of the Absolute, which was just as Absolute as the former, even though how it manifest was both radically different, yet in reality, absolutely the same Divine Essence. In technical terms, which I touched on before, the 1st part was a "Casual" level experience, which took on the form of a "Deity mysticism" experience.

The 2nd part, most definitely included that, but "transcended" it in how the Divine was experienced by me into what technically can be understood as a true "nondual" experience. That "face of the Divine" which manifest to me previously, was not an active part of it as it was, but the "face behind the face", that Infinite God behind "God", that Formeless Causal Spirit, was now bursting forth, radiating the Infinite Formless, Causal Divine into all form. That.... was Logos. That Radiance of God, and Spirit flowed through all, to all, from all. That, is vibrant, "living color" (a good description), was that Trinity. The Infinite Wellspring of Life (the Father), manifesting, radiating the Divine Reality in and through form (the Son or Logos), and the binding flow of "living waters (an absolutely apt description) between creation and Source, is Spirit; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. One God, in three "substances" of the one Divine substance.

The Trinity at its heart is a mystical realization, and very confused by most anyone who have not experienced this, mistaking the "persons" as "people", or some other such anthropomorphism as a mental description of the Divine reality. It is all one Divine Reality, as Source, Manifestation, and Union. Father, Son, Spirit. That is one way to talk about it. The Divine Reality embraces all of us, without exception.

I'm going to pause here to focus my thoughts again as the key to me in our conversation is that it seems you have taken your experience as the single way the experience of the Absolute is, as the only reality it can be because it was Absolute to you. The first, to me as well as the second was the same Absolute, but rather than me seeing a "contradiction", I came to realize, since the nature of both was that exact and only one absolute Reality, and they were experienced differently, that they are simply different perceptions and experiences. I don't sense that you understand this, and see "off meat" as you put it, when you hear someone speak of God outside your translation of your personal experience of the Absolute. I'd like to focus here if we could.

Do you see that my description of "part two" of my own "death and resurrection" experience is a "contradiction" to the first one, or to yours? Was the first God, and the second something else that wasn't God? Does the human experience of the Divine have to fit within theological constructs, or should theological constructs be rather products of experiences of the many depths of the Divine? Is God one "thing" or can be known in many ways, from nature mysticism, to deity mysticism, to casual mysticism, to nondual mysticism? Is your experience, or my experience, the limits and absolute measure of the Truth of God? Can your experience of the Divine, allow for "surprises"?
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
@Windwalker

I missed you post back when it was made, and have since largely been removed from here. I know it has been some time, but if you are willing I'd enjoy picking the conversation back up.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
@Windwalker

I missed you post back when it was made, and have since largely been removed from here. I know it has been some time, but if you are willing I'd enjoy picking the conversation back up.
Hello again. Speaking of surprises. Sure, I took a month before responding with my last post, which led to a year and a half for yours. :) Certainly, we can pick this up again if you're interested. I would enjoy that.

In rereading my last post, I think the salient question after giving examples of my personal experiences was in the last paragraph,

Does the human experience of the Divine have to fit within theological constructs, or should theological constructs be rather products of experiences of the many depths of the Divine? Is God one "thing" or can be known in many ways, from nature mysticism, to deity mysticism, to casual mysticism, to nondual mysticism? Is your experience, or my experience, the limits and absolute measure of the Truth of God? Can your experience of the Divine, allow for "surprises"?
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
I'd like to further respond to your full post, but I'll answer what you consider the salient question first.

Does the human experience of the Divine have to fit within theological constructs, or should theological constructs be rather products of experiences of the many depths of the Divine? Is God one "thing" or can be known in many ways, from nature mysticism, to deity mysticism, to casual mysticism, to nondual mysticism? Is your experience, or my experience, the limits and absolute measure of the Truth of God? Can your experience of the Divine, allow for "surprises"?
I believe the intellectual understanding of the Divine is complementary of the mystical experience. They work together to produce a greater understanding. True theological constructs will be informed by divine experience and authentic divine experience will confirm true theology. God is one, I don't know that I would add "thing", He can be known through many methods, but will always express Himself as Himself. As I've said before God is not the author of confusion. God is consistent, God is a rock that you can build your framework of life upon. The Divine is not shifting sand.

It would be absurd to suggest that my knowledge or experience are the limits of the Divine, but I find it equally absurd to suggest that what God has imparted through our unifying experiences is not absolutely true. To simplify my stance somewhat extravagantly, to recognize the complexities of advanced mathematics doesn't mean the absolute truth of 2+2=4 is abrogated. I do, of course, expect to be surprised (and let me tell you, the first time God spoke to me I was quite surprised and the first time I fell into the vision of the ecstatic union I was incomprehensibly shocked), but not as the result of divine tomfoolery. Everything God has revealed to me has been a building upon of what came before. The experience of the divine I have had, and the idea of non-dualistic experience wherein one sees themselves as a part of the divine substance are fundamentally contradictory. Not just in the self/divine divide or lack thereof, but in the essential nature of God, that I need not doubt or worry about my current state with regard to some future revelation requiring a momentous paradigm shift. God has revealed the Truth at all times and in every way.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Well, to me, if we are to play genders, God is a she. She gave birth to the universe. :)

Regards
Mikkel
The concept of applying gender to God seems as strange as applying it to galaxies or gravity.

But I have to agree with you. Females are where we really come from. Reproduction only needs males to spread the DNA around amongst a population of women.
Men, in the grand scheme of things, are extremely dispensable. :cool:
Tom
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
The concept of applying gender to God seems as strange as applying it to galaxies or gravity.

But I have to agree with you. Females are where we really come from. Reproduction only needs males to spread the DNA around amongst a population of women.
Men, in the grand scheme of things, are extremely dispensable. :cool:
Tom

Well, scientists can't be kept down. So here it is as it works. Take 2 females - harvest one egg from both each. Keep one egg as an egg. Remove the core genetic material from the other and inject that into the egg. Modern women don't need men anymore. :D

Regards
Mikkel
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Well, scientists can't be kept down. So here it is as it works. Take 2 females - harvest one egg from both each. Keep one egg as an egg. Remove the core genetic material from the other and inject that into the egg. Modern women don't need men anymore. :D

Regards
Mikkel

I don't think it's quite as simple as that, the cells need to be haploid. But yeah, basically that's so.

In another thread a member insists on gendering the Persons of the Trinity. The Holy Ghost is female, creating a happy little nuclear family. I don't think that they realize that this idea of theirs is proof enough for me that I know more about God than they do.
Tom
 
Top