|
Word Gems
exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity
|
We know so little about God. God is not a “thing” in the 3-D universe. But, like the wind, we might discern something of God’s nature and essence via inference.
|
return to the main-page article on "God"
We can’t see the wind, but we can know something of what it’s like by how it interacts with the environment. In small measure, this principle helps us to understand the nature of God.
The following is an excerpt from the “Omega” book, an article discussing love, pleasure, and sexuality. The concluding section of that writing speaks to the workings of Universal Consciousness in our deepest selves, and, from this dynamic, we might infer and know something of the essence of God.
**************************************
Kairissi. Concerning these “images” created by the ego, I once thought that its subject matter was confined pretty much to hurtful images – those or that which pose a threat, terror, or some form of disgust to oneself. But I now see that this is not true. The ego also uses images of pleasure to derail us, to take us over, to separate and divide us from others, to make us lose our sentience.
Elenchus. Explain this to everyone, Kriss.
K. We might find ourselves led into sexual fantasies, forbidden encounters, images of illicit “perfect bodies” and “pretty faces.”
E. Now, some people might say, yes, there are good reasons why we shouldn’t give ourselves to this kind of illusion, but – what does the ego have to do with this alternate version of its “rogues' gallery” parading in the mind?
K. Let’s recall the purpose of the ego. It’s that temporary “scaffolding,” as we called it, designed to make us individuals in our own right. And the ego doesn’t really care so much how it does it. To effect its designs, it will try to portray the world, and everyone in it, as “other,” allowing a drama of “me against them.”
E. And this strengthens the perception of an individualized self. We can fairly easily see this process happening with “enemies” or things distasteful in our memories, but why should images of pleasure be labeled as “other”?
|
the purpose of the brain is to filter out, from universal consciousness, anything not correlating with the body’s perspective; in this ‘step-down transformer’ process, separate egos, with separate personal identities, emerge
Dr. Bernardo Kastrup, PhD philosophy, PhD computer science, for many years worked at CERN, the large hadron collider in Geneva.
“… the function of the brain is to localize consciousness, pinning it to the space-time reference point implied by the physical body. In doing so, the brain modulates conscious perception in accordance with the perspective of the body.
a brain that filters implies the existence of unbound mind, a universal consciousness
"When not subject to this localization and modulation mechanism, mind is unbound: it entails consciousness of all there is across space, time, and perhaps beyond. Therefore, by localizing mind, the brain also ‘filters out’ of consciousness anything that is not correlated with the body’s perspective… like a radio receiver selecting [a particular station], among the variety [with] all other stations being filtered out and never reaching the consciousness of the listener…
"[T]he filter hypothesis implies that consciousness, in its unfiltered state, is unbound. As such, consciousness must be fundamentally unitary and non-individualized, for separateness and individualization entail boundaries.
Editor’s note: Father Benson from the afterlife speaks of a being, formerly mortal, five billion years old, so advanced as to enjoy awareness of all life-forms in the universe; in this, we see the future of the ‘unfiltered’ mind. Read More on the “500 hundred tape-recorded messages from the other side” page. Editor’s note: There may be those, still in this world, with powers of expanded mind, so extensive, that a certain far-flung awareness of items in the universe may exist right now. Consider the advanced shamans of the South American Kogi people. They know things that escape the rest of us. See the inset-box.
the filtering brain creates the illusion of separateness, of disconnected personal egos
"The emergence of multiple, separate and different conscious perspectives or egos, is a consequence of the filtering and localization process: different egos, entailing different perspectives on space-time, retain awareness of different subsets of all potential subjective experiences, the rest being filtered out. It is the difference across subsets that give each ego its idiosyncratic vantage point, personal history, and sense of personal identity.
Editor’s note: A brain designed to filter, and reduce to a trickle, experience does not substantively support a theory of reincarnation which exalts much experience. We do not come to this planet to gain experience, as such, but to individualize, to transform one’s tiny sub-set of universal consciousness into a personal ego. With this, we become ready for what comes next in the afterlife, even if we are not yet “good” persons, which can be accomplished later, but only after one becomes a person in one’s own right. Read More on this need for individualization.
"The subjective experiences that are filtered out become the so-called ‘unconscious’ mind of the respective ego. Since each ego allows in only an infinitesimally small part of all potential experiences … the ‘unconscious’ minds of different egos will differ only minimally… As such, the filter hypothesis, unlike materialism, predicts the existence of a ‘collective unconscious’; a shared repository of potential experiences that far transcends mere genetic predispositions of a species…
the likely origin of the mystical experience
"[A]nd most importantly, the filter hypothesis predicts that one can have experiences that do not correlate with one’s brain states. Since here the brain is seen merely as a mechanism for filtering out experience … when this [filtering] mechanism is interfered with so as to be partially or temporarily deactivated, one’s subjective experience could delocalize, expand beyond the body in time and space, and perhaps even beyond time and space [giving rise to what is called the mystical experience]…”
READ MORE of Dr. Kastrup's work on the “quantum mechanics” page
|
K. If we allow ourselves a fantasy of sexual conquest, of using another as means to satisfy an appetite - enjoying Woman like a good steak - then we dehumanize, make merchandize of, the other - and it doesn’t matter if we’re dating or in a John-and-Mary marriage - we are exploiting another in a philosophy of “make me happy”, with no concern for the interests or dignity of the one we’re with.
every ego wants something from you
E. As we've said, "every ego wants something from you."
K. And the ego's wanting and craving will reduce a living human being, with godlike potential, to a level of pawn and play-thing, chattel and sex-object, mere external pleasure-source and bio-stimulation. Fairly tawdry stuff.
what does this tell us about the nature of Universal Consciousness, commonly known as God
E. Kriss, you’ve explained a wonderful insight, a great truth. But as you were speaking it occurred to me that all this tells us something about the nature of Universal Consciousness – of God, if you will. We often say that the essence of Consciousness is unknowable: it’s not a “thing” in this 3-D cosmos, we can’t pin it down and label it, and yet, from what you just said, we might infer something of its characteristics.
K. It’s like the wind; we can’t see it, but it reveals itself as it interacts with the environment.
E. Look at what we can discern here. If we view or treat others as “means to an end,” as pawns and playthings, not only do we dehumanize those with whom we deal, but we dehumanize ourselves, as well. We de-sensitize our spirits, making them less reliable channels for divine influence. We harden our hearts, making ourselves less human.
K. And consider the converse. When we treat others with respect and dignity, honoring their sacred potential, we find ourselves burgeoning with a greater sense of community, harmony, a spirit of oneness with all.
E. This informs us, significantly, concerning the nature and essence of the Universal Consciousness in whom, as Paul said, “we live and move and have our being.”
K. It means that God is moralistic. God seeks to bring the disparate elements of creation into a oneness and harmony. We can feel the impetus, within ourselves, toward this unification, that is, if we allow it, if we permit this “flow” of life and energy to have its way, in us and through us.
E. Let me restate this as it's so important. What we're saying here, I think, is that we're hard-wired to treat each other in a certain way; of course, we can spurn the inner directive toward oneness, people do it all the time, but, when we do, we pay for it. What does this mean in terms of what we might infer about God? It means that God is a moralistic being, desiring affinity, harmony, love, and community, else we wouldn't feel a prompting toward these expressions of unity.
Editor's note:
Here’s something else we can know about the nature of Universal Consciousness.
In the “Sensibility” article we find a large number of testimonies from the other side offered by those who, upon transitioning from this world, “sent themselves” to a “dark closet without walls,” or, worse, to a sewer-pit rat-cellar. Upon arrival, these hapless discovered that they could neither see nor hear.
Why does this occur, it is reported, to 75% of those who cross over? As we study the many reports, the answer presents itself. If we live our lives on planet Earth endeavoring to close our eyes and close our ears to “the truth,” if we stifle the “still small voice” of godly reason within, if we deal in lies and deception – toward others or ourselves -- then we pervert ourselves.
The dysfunction overtakes us in the form of shutting down the ability to see and hear when we transition. This condition might last a day or a thousand years, depending on how “hard core” one is.
The “sensibility” research is among the most valuable in the WG library. However, there’s a spin-off, ancillary insight to be gained from all this. It teaches us what is important to Universal Consciousness, that is, to God.
If our sight and hearing is taken from us, if we’ve abused the coming-to-truth process, then, because of the dramatic loss of sensibilities, we can know that all this is important to God -- that, “God is light”, meaning, God by nature seeks to reveal the divine essence; that, God is forthcoming by nature, loves truth, openness, rationality, and even-mindedness; and, if we go against this "prime directive," our duty to emulate Mother-Father God, if we try to ruin ourselves by acting in a closed-minded cultish manner, then, well, there's hell to pay; as if to say, God doesn't take lightly a defiant spirit from a wayward son or daughter, those "made in the image," made for something else, now intent upon destroying themselves. Prodigals are allowed a freedom to choose being stupid, but, no surprise, this choice doesn't end well, creates its own lesson-plan of educative suffering; as they say, disillusionment is the doorway to wisdom. It was all quite foreseeable, however, as the "still small voice within" kept warning us with every backsliding step. Read the "sensibility" research.
|
Is 'God' a personal God, with personality, who knows us individually, or just a life-principle to be found in all aspects of creation?
This is a question that is debated on the other side. Opinions vary. For example, in the books featuring the channeled direct-voice mediumship of Emily French, we find intellectuals over there discussing this issue.
As I look at all the evidence, I must come down on the side favoring a “personal God who knows us” while also acknowledging that “God as a universal life-principle” is also true. This position of complementarity, not contradiction, reminds us of Niels Bohr’s proposition.
In the “evolution” research report we looked at the mathematical evidence strongly indicating that the complexity-harmony we see woven into the fabric of the universe could not have come to us via randomness.
This suggests that a real, living, Intelligence subsumes it all. Each of us has what we call "personality," a sense of personhood, because - to my way of thinking - we reflect the archetypal source of personality and personhood.
While accepting these statements, we also deny that deity is a "sky-God, somewhere 'up there', with long white beard, sitting on a marble throne". Such image represents fodder of ancient myth, the ignorance of primordial peoples, and has no place in reality. God is "spirit," is consciousness itself, is not a "thing" in the 3-D universe. More than this we have difficulty affirming.
This is a large subject, one that we shall be investigating for a very long time to come, even in Summerland. However, here is one testimony from the other side which sees things as I do:
The following is from Flashes of Light from the Spirit-land, through the mediumship of Mrs. J. H. Conant, by Allen Putnam, Frances Ann Conant, 1872.
Question. ls the Deity a being, or is he a principle pervading all Nature? If the latter, why do you address him as a being, in the invocation?
Answer. That our God is a personal, and also an impersonal God, is equally true. Since the God-power or God-life is everywhere, he, it, or she is of course personified everywhere. I believe in the worship of all that is worthy of worship. If it is the flower, let us worship there. If it is the human soul, let us worship there. If it is a lofty thought, let us worship there. Wherever we see anything, or perceive any state, either of mind or matter, that is worthy of worship, there we should worship.
All Spiritualists, I believe, consider God to be an infinite principle pervading all forms, occupying all space. I believe this. I have seen nothing during my life in the spirit-world to cause me to believe otherwise, I did not believe it when here [on Earth].
But the Book of Life hath been so widely opened to me since death, that I can come to no other conclusion than that God is a principle pervading all forms, and occupying all space. God is in the atmosphere, and is the atmosphere. God is in the sunlight, and is the sunlight. God is the sun and the shadow. He is everything, and is in all places. It is absolutely useless to endeavor to confine God to any particular place or state of being, for could we do that, we should rob God of the God-power. We should at once chain this great eternal principle, this infinite life, to finite space [thus limiting God]. We should [by this confinement of God] at once bring it down within the scope of [limited] human analysis.
And I, for one, am glad we cannot. But we have been so in the habit of addressing this Deity, this Power of Life, as though it were a [mere] man or woman, a [mere human] personality like ourselves, that it is very hard to change our course ... as I before remarked, our God is a personal God, and therefore it is proper that we should thus address him.
Editor’s note: In my opinion, some of the best discussion and reasoning concerning the ontology of God [what God is] will be found in the science books of Dr. Federico Faggin.
God is Universal Consciousness, which provides the underlying essence of matter, of all things in the universe. (See the "quantum" page.) However, I do not see how we can avoid speaking of God as a “personal God.”
The mathematics of probability strongly lead us to Intelligent Design. (See the "evolution" page.) Can there be such a thing as an Intelligent Designer if said entity is not also, in some sense, an Intelligent Person? How could there be intelligence without an intelligent person?
We speak of God’s love. Despite what skeptics view as a heartless and cold universe, there is a mountain of evidence to suggest that the universe was also created for our pleasure, education, developmental needs, and the like. All these are properly viewed as expressions of love. Can there be such a thing as a God of Love if said entity is not also, in some sense, a Loving Person? How could there be love without a loving person?
We might apply this reasoning to a number of attributes we ascribe to God, and when we do, I would say, it is unavoidable not to also judge said entity as a thinking, rational, feeling Person.
|
|