I actually experienced this on a walk through a wooded area that I frequented as a child. The woods had changed much since I had last walked in them but as I walked I recognized certain landmarks; an old tree still stood, a fire ring where we congregated, a pond where we swam and cuaght fish, frogs, snakes and turtles. I could feel that they also recognized me and though I thought I hadn't changed much, the reflected back to me my tarnished soul.
On May 10, 12:24 am, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > On 5/7/2010 11:09 AM, Pat wrote: > > > > > > > On 7 May, 15:53, RP<[email protected]> wrote: > > >> God is the mind which concieves the universe , He is the mind which > >> runs it, and He is the mind which destroys it. He does not see in the > >> manner in which we see each other and He does not act in the manner in > >> which we act. His awareness and action is transcendental in nature. In > >> our vanity we may pretend to comprehend Him, but we do not see or > >> accept the fact that our intelligence is not infinite but only a few > >> grades above that of animals. We have to just look at animals to > >> realise that , after all our understanding also is finite. We are > >> learning and growing day by day , but we are far from being Supreme. > > > Well, He does see as we do, but He also sees in a way we do not. When > > you look at something, in reality, it is Him that is seeing (and > > hearing and every other sensation any of us sense). And His ability > > to multiprocess all our awarenesses (and the awareness of all living > > things!) is a part of what defines His transcendant abilities. But > > there are more (unseen) places than just this 4-D universe and His > > wareness includes all that, as well. You're also right about our > > level of consciousness being not that much above other animals. It is > > our conceit that leads us to believe we are far greater than they > > are. But we're not. God can think like a tree (and, in fact thinks > > like each tree, as each tree's awareness is, in fact, His), yet no > > animal can. I'm not sure that God's understanding is infinite, but it > > is comprehensive, that is, it covers everything, though there may be a > > limit, that limit is far beyond our comprehension. > > By seeking god in things both great and small, what good does knowledge > of the supernal do us? This may sound like an ethical question, but I > think the ontological systems taste like steel (cold and bureaucratic) > except to the meditative mind. How might we bring it down to the > expressive, experiential domain that each life is unfolding? I hope this > makes sense. There seems to be a spin associated with the dominance of > hierarchy and order, a hypothetical plane where there is a removal of > emotion and experience, a cold and mechanical world. That place could be > seen as a destination (top down), it's other coinciding 'spin' is > somewhat opposite as it is in process. I see the process spin (bottom > up) as the plane of experience, compassion, evolution. > > This skepticism is not directed at you personally but a general > observation. One is that we would follow an oppressive belief system > which we methodically recreate ourselves to fit into. The other is that > we each would be informed and guided through the progressive domains of > our personal evolutions without denying our experiences or knowledge. I > hope you manage to add that 'flesh' to the skeleton of this interesting > God you are discovering. Looking forward to seeing your book, what > category would I find it in? *chuckles > > This sounds much like panpsychism, an area I once dismissed but upon > recent study is sounding very 'right' (for me, now).- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
