To: K-list
Recieved: 2002/02/19 01:42
Subject: [K-list] Re: There is no God, only Universal consciousness?
From: godchild_777
On 2002/02/19 01:42, godchild_777 posted thus to the K-list:
Hi folks,
Sorry for my haphazard coming and going … I'm naturally
scatterbrained (ADD, I'm told), I've been going through
various
stressful trials, my online time is limited nowadays, and even when
online, I have so many other places to be and people to talk to …
But last Monday I piped up in response to Emilyb's post
"There is no
God, only Universal Consciousness." And, as I expected, I drew
the
ire of several board members.
In her post, Emily told us of some of her experiences. In doing so
she used words usually associated with the language of objective
truth: "discover," "acknowledging,"
"information," "understood," "saw
that …"
She spoke of "Goddesses," "angels," "beings,"
etc., for all intents
and purposes as if she believed them to be really what they appeared
to be. She seemed to take the vision quite seriously:
I feel now more than ever that
> I am part of It and It is part of me. ...
If any
> of it is true, I have to rethink the little bit I thought I
understood about
> everything.
Then, Emilyb asks the list if we think her visions were true:
"Do you have a sense that it is right?"
"I wanted to know if others sensed any TRUTHS in this vision."
Well, I could have just come back and said, "No, I don't
sense any
truths in that vision, and here's why …" But I thought that
instead,
I would answer her question with some more questions and maybe get
her thinking instead of just telling her what I thought.
In my reply, I may have been a bit too hasty, and was clumsy in my
choice of words ("give credence to"), but I also had a couple of
points which I will reiterate.
By the way, after I replied, the Mystress came and told me not to
"be
disrespectful of other members' experiences," etc. Mystress,
I was
not disrespecting--if that were my attitude, I wouldn't waste my time
here. :) I was asking some pointed questions (I'm used to doing
that—
I'm a journalist) in an attempt to stimulate some much-needed
critical thinking about these experiences.
It seems that on this board, critical thinking applied to experience
and feelings is discouraged. "Experience is reality" seems to
be the
unspoken assumption. Most people don't seem to have even remotely
considered the possibility that experiences or feelings could be
misleading. There's just this wide-eyed, naïve acceptance:
Oooh!
Pretty shiny angels! How nice! It must be Truth! I feel "at one
with
the universe." That must be Truth too!
I also find it amusing in a way, but very frustrating in other ways,
to attempt to converse with people who like to think of themselves as
dogma-free, yet are constantly, *very* dogmatically, dispensing their
own forms of dogma—such as "everything came from nothing"!
Same for those who claim to be above belief in mere
"god-concepts,"
yet can be found constantly spouting Eastern religious god-concepts;
living their lives by same; and then treating those who don't
believe
those concepts as if they were Neanderthals.
This mindset, To be blunt, seems to be a form of blindness to the
obvious, as well as a spiritual smugness that is not really different
from the kind which everyone would like to think only happens
within "fundamentalism." It has, in fact, become the new
fundamentalism, and its adherents are the last people to realize it.
The one remark that gave me some hope came at the end of Emilyb's
reply to me:
My only intent is to learn/experience true enlightenment so I don't
want to
> stop and stay at every interesting experience that comes along. I'm
not
> seeking to have adventures, to develop psychic abilities, to
communicate
> with any beings.
Very smart and very encouraging. :)
But then Emilyb added a statement not showing quite the same degree
of thought:
> I of course meant God in the Judeo/Christian/Muslim concept, or
even Brahman
> in the Hindu one. An all knowing, all powerful, ever exsiting being.
> Goddesses and Gods are lower beings, creations of men and the
Consciousness.
The ones you know are. The one I know is not. :)
To claim that *all* gods are creations of men begs the question:
Emily, exactly how did you ascertain this? Are you all-knowing?
Could it not be that your "Consciousness" that you
dreamed/envisioned
is the "creation of men," and the God of the Judeo-Christian
belief
is real? What makes you so certain that it is somehow
more "enlightened" to believe in this consciousness-blob than
to
believe in a personal, transcendent, preexistent Creator?
Again, I would say: How does "consciousness" create itself,
or arise
spontaneously for no reason?
There are only a few explanations for the existence of the cosmos:
1) everything always existed, or
2) everything created itself out of nothing, with no intelligent
design, or
3) everything was created by a superior, preexisting intelligence
("Creator").
You either have a spontaneously self-creating universe arising out of
nothing, directed by no one, for no reason—which makes no sense;
or
you have an eternal universe (which would mean eternal matter); or
you have an eternal, preexisting Creator--"Consciousness," if
you
will. The latter is hard to fathom, true, but it makes more sense
than self-creation as it fits in with the observable experience of
every human being who has ever lived (i.e., complex information
systems do not create themselves; they require intelligent design.)
When I asked you:
> >
> > * How would something as complex as the universe--including us and
> > our incredibly complex bodies and brains and consciousnesses--be
> > created "by accident"?
>
You responded:
Ø
Ø And why not? ;)
I wish the question really could be just "winked" away. But
it ain't
quite so simple. ;)
How exactly does matter "rise" to "become aware"? Are
you aware of
the tremendous scientific and mathematic difficulties with the idea
of biological evolution—particularly when it comes to
intelligence
and consciousness?
> The consciousness wants us to become aware of It and to join It
bringing a
Ø different knowledge and awareness.
Ø
Now this I can agree with.
One possibility that few seem to have considered is that we may very
well be "one" with something—but not necessarily God. We
may all be
connected—after all, we are all descended from the same two
humans,
so we are all family, so one might expect us all to be connected,
even psychically.
BUT according to the Bible, there's more to the story--a twist in
the
plot. THE HUMAN FAMILY IS FALLEN—separated from God! So, rejoice
in
your "connectedness" all you like, folks—but that
don't make you
automatically GOD, or even connected to him! IT maybe makes you
connected-to-each-other-but-STILL-fallen-and-sinful (separated-from-
God), human beings!
Your mission: to search for him and reconnect with Him again. Your
life and efforts are best spent, not striking out into the untracked
wilderness and trying to cut your own path, but in seeking and
finding the Path he has already sent his firstborn Son to tread
before you and mark for your benefit. And I'm not talking about going
to some church; I'm talking about something much deeper.
Some have the mistaken conclusion that their "god-inside-me" or murky
self-created "Consciousness" is "bigger" than God I believe in who
existed before all things and created the universe. I disagree. These
folks are often very loving, very sincere people, and may think they
are being very "big," bravely "transcending" the old
god-concepts,
etc.-- but in reality, they are creating for themselves a sort of
mini-god--a god that WE can be the Master of, instead of vice versa.
It's not a god I would want to put my trust in.
> It's not so much a question of thinking as experiencing. ... I
prefer
> personal experience and insights to intellectual debates, because
experience
> simply IS.
I am aghast, flabbergasted and exasperated--not to mention befuddled--
by the prevalence of this attitude today, the attitude that truth is
subjective. IT is so self-evidently false (and *self*-falsifying at
that) that one wonders how anybody falls for it. What happens when
you have 6 billion people and each one has his own "truth"?
Whose "truth" is true? Is it just the guy who shouts the loudest?
Maybe it's the guy with more guns than everyone else?
Come to think of it, isn't that kind of the society we have
today? To
you, it may be true that you have a right to your own property. But
to the burglar who breaks into your home, "truth" is that
whatever he
can take by force is his. Again, whose "truth" is true?
To expand it to a larger scale: Hitler's "truth" was that
Jews were
evil and should be eliminated from the earth. Who's to say his
truth
was not true?
> "Whatever gets you through the night, is all right."
Not quite!
> God bless Indigo one :)
> With true love
Ø Emily :)
Well God bless you too! And I put
*****P*E*A*C*E**L*O*V*E**&**B*L*E*S*S*I*N*G*S*****
at the end of every post, because I MEAN it. I love you all.
I really, really do.
--
http://www.kundalini-gateway.org
http://www.domin8rex.com/serpent/spirit/kindex.htm
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.