Re: [FairfieldLife] The Personal and Impersonal God
On Oct 29, 2011, at 2:42 AM, maskedzebra wrote: RESPONSE: That quote is from the Summa Theologica Part 1 Question 49 Article 3. Of course this is a translation from the original Latin. I find your comments (and Buddhist erudition) interesting; but, as you know, Vaj, your ultimate intention/ agenda remains cleverly, even fanatically secretive and concealed. I just sense when you write that you are not giving away a single thing about the person that you are. You could be an extraterrestrial. You expunge all personal evidence of who you are in everything you write. It is as if you are stranger at FFL who in the place of anything that partakes of personality, substitutes esoteric Buddhist doctrine. The enigmatic and rarified substance of all that you say does not connect to the human. You could even be a brilliant zombie. Where is the personal consciousness of Vaj? Already in even reading these words you are calculating how to eliminate all traces of anything self-revealing—as a matter almost of strategic survival. You don't risk anything, Vaj. Does this mean you self-quartine yourself with someone who might love you? I am happy to interact with you more substantively; but this clandestine way you present yourself, it takes away the most important dimension of experience. I think you're either being paranoid or you're just afraid to interact with me, with such silly excuses as I'm the only one here who can very easily connect the dots between Arosa Robin and Rome Robin. As I said before, feel free to contact me off list. I'm unable to do so since your email address is carefully concealed.
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Personal and Impersonal God
On Oct 27, 2011, at 10:59 AM, wgm4u wrote: MMY never meant to suggest that the personal *manifest* God took A form once and for all time. Basically this *formless* Creative Intelligence can take any form and has taken many forms down through the ages. God Consciousness is merely the expansion of what MMY calls Cosmic Consciousness (or Self Realization to God Realization). The emphasis should be on the term God *Consciousness*. Some people have called this formless Creative Intelligence (in creation) the Christ Consciousness and others Krishna Consciousness, those 'names' are merely specific to time and history. The Personal God can take any form at any time. The Personal God is a *reflection* IN creation of the Impersonal Absolute Brahman. Brahman is the Silence and its personal reflection in creation is the dynamism (in the context of Shakti or Shiva/Shakti). From HH Robin Woodsworth Carlsen, Journey Into The Personal [god]: Letters of an Enlightened Man THE PERSONAL: the reality at the basis of the evolutionary process taking place at Sunnyside/Goldstream [abode of RWC] and the context in which all the letters have their basis. The Personal had its genesis in the spontaneous cognitions of the author at the point of his Enlightenment. From that moment, the author perceived The Personal, the realm of 'relationship', to contain potentially the highest display of Creative Intelligence, the most sublime knowledge and experience. It was the path to God, the apotheosis of the Western experience. However it also happened to be the area where the spell of ego-separateness and inertia were greatest, the sphere of existence over which the demonic had the most insidious control and influence. To free The Personal from its conditioned definitions and boundaries involved a powerful and subtle aesthetic of feeling, one that required a profoundly different vision of human life. That vision amounted to the recognition and acknowledgment of a polarized conflict within Creation between an essentially divine or positive Intelligence and a fundamentally demonic or negative intelligence. Each individual was the battleground of these opposing tendencies and, in order to uncover the laws of relationship, the sacred Dance of The Personal, he or she had to confront the evil within and enter into the possibility of a communication that reinforced the divine impulses and exposed and weakened the demonic ones. Relationship, The Personal, became a mirror to reflect one's level of integration, to discover one's divine uniqueness, to stimulate experience of self-knowledge and wholeness, to separate the divine from the demonic; in short to become enlightened. All the letters are the empirical proof of this description and reveal the beautiful laws that underlie all interpersonal communication, how, in contacting and obeying those laws we can realize the highest glory and fulfillment within Creation: the flowering of the human personality.
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Personal and Impersonal God
On Oct 27, 2011, at 2:29 PM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Yifu yifuxero@... wrote: right, for that reason, I dispute MaskedZebra's assertion that the Trinity is God, any more so than Krishna or for that matter (not even asserting the God argument) that a dirt clod = the Buddha. I dispute anyone's claim to absolute knowledge of the verity of ANYTHING. Claimants to the superiority of a unique position in the Universe for particular Personalities (...whomever), should stand up and be counted; And/or laughed at. Or committed for immediate psychiatric evaluation and subsequent medication management...
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Personal and Impersonal God
On Oct 28, 2011, at 4:39 PM, maskedzebra wrote: RESPONSE: There is not one first principle of evil as there is of good. In the first place, the original principle of things is essential good. Nothing can be essentially bad. Every being as being is good; evil does not exist except in a good subject. Aquinas actually said this? If so I'd be interested in seeing this entire quote in the original language it was spoken in. The reality of intrinsic goodness, or Basic Goodness, is an important one for me, so it's good to see Aquinas cherishing it. Basic non-aggression and freshness is what I live for. Can you share the original source? For me, the basic milk of human kindness, is the basic building block of world-sanity. Even if you meet a Hitler, you have to approach every sentient in your mandala as basically, fundamentally good. For me this is the basic building block of human evolution. In the second place, the first principle of good things is supreme and perfect good containing all goodness in itself. Now there cannot be supreme evil, for though evil lessens good, it can never totally destroy good; while good remains, nothing can be an entire and unmitigated evil, For this reason Aristotle observes that a wholly evil thing would be self-destructive. Were all good entirely destroyed—and this would be required for evil to be complete—evil itself would vanish since its subject, namely good, would no longer be there. So, if a good translation, this could mean that Aquinas would square with the bodhisattva principle: intrinsic goodness means all life is intrinsically precious and that the Awakened Heart comes from being willing to face your state of mind, not cultivate some escapist transcendence. Did he extend this principle to all sentient life-forms, of was it restricted merely or principally to homo sapiens?: the top of the food chain (me, us) is preeminent? In the third place, the very notion of evil is irreconcilable with the notion of a first principle, because evil is caused by good; also because evil can be a cause only incidentally, and therefore cannot be the first cause, since the accidental is subsequent to the essential. All polarities are causal, so this is no real big surprise. Some have proclaimed that the two prime rules are Good and Evil. Here lies a root of error from which other strange doctrines of the ancients have sprouted [and yours too, Robin Woodsworth Carlsen]. In attending to the particular causes of particular effects they failed to consider the universal cause of all being. When they found one thing by its natural force injurious to another, they reckoned that the very nature of the thing was evil; as if one were to say that the nature of fire is evil because it burns down the house of some poor man. The estimate, however, of a thing's goodness does not primarily depend on any particular reference, but on its being and on its relation to the whole universe, wherein every part holds its perfectly appointed place. Similarly, when they discovered two contrary particular causes of two contrary particular effects they were at a loss how to resolve them into a universal common cause; therefore they pushed back the contrariness of causes into the first principles of things. Since contraries have a common ground, we should instead look for one common cause above their proper contrary causes. A nice Dzogchen twist to Aquinas which might counter stating that all experience contains the same essence. That's the reason meditative experiences are valuable, they (hopefully) bring that essential nondual experience right up front and personal - otherwise they're mere fodder for narcissism and the cancer of Self-cherishing. Vaj
[FairfieldLife] The Personal and Impersonal God
MMY never meant to suggest that the personal *manifest* God took A form once and for all time. Basically this *formless* Creative Intelligence can take any form and has taken many forms down through the ages. God Consciousness is merely the expansion of what MMY calls Cosmic Consciousness (or Self Realization to God Realization). The emphasis should be on the term God *Consciousness*. Some people have called this formless Creative Intelligence (in creation) the Christ Consciousness and others Krishna Consciousness, those 'names' are merely specific to time and history. The Personal God can take any form at any time. The Personal God is a *reflection* IN creation of the Impersonal Absolute Brahman. Brahman is the Silence and its personal reflection in creation is the dynamism (in the context of Shakti or Shiva/Shakti).
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Personal and Impersonal God
wgm4u, My signature line is from the appendix to MMY's Gita. Under the influence of maya, Brahman appears as Ishvara, the personal God, who exists on the celestial level of life, in the subtlest field of creation. In a similar manner, under the influence of avidya, atman appears as jiva, or individual soul. - MMY - Original Message - From: wgm4u anitaoak...@att.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Cc: Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:59 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Personal and Impersonal God MMY never meant to suggest that the personal *manifest* God took A form once and for all time. Basically this *formless* Creative Intelligence can take any form and has taken many forms down through the ages. God Consciousness is merely the expansion of what MMY calls Cosmic Consciousness (or Self Realization to God Realization). The emphasis should be on the term God *Consciousness*. Some people have called this formless Creative Intelligence (in creation) the Christ Consciousness and others Krishna Consciousness, those 'names' are merely specific to time and history. The Personal God can take any form at any time. The Personal God is a *reflection* IN creation of the Impersonal Absolute Brahman. Brahman is the Silence and its personal reflection in creation is the dynamism (in the context of Shakti or Shiva/Shakti). To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Personal and Impersonal God
On Oct 27, 2011, at 6:06 PM, gullible fool wrote: wgm4u, My signature line is from the appendix to MMY's Gita. Under the influence of maya, Brahman appears as Ishvara, the personal God, who exists on the celestial level of life, in the subtlest field of creation. In a similar manner, under the influence of avidya, atman appears as jiva, or individual soul. Hi fool. I thought it was from Classic Comic Books: Vedic Wisdom :) Sal
