The dead go into the Night.
The Night becomes the Day.
Ragan, caught in the Burning Wheel, rose to heaven but was cast down.
The Mother wept for him.
These Aspects of God mean:
the rainy season enlivening dry earth;
dreams and waking;
"'...loss-remembrance-recreation...'" (p. 576);
"'...transformations of physical energy...'" (ibid.)
All is one.
At Bale time, in the Holy City, the Gwydiona "'...are God.'" (ibid.)
"Vwi," a pronoun of the universal gender, applies to God.
Unfortunately, the Bale time experience of the Gwydiona is sub-, not supra-, rational.
Why not use a neuter pronoun? Hindu: Tat, THAT.
My Opinion
Self is recognised as such only by contrast with other. Therefore, the single reality, identified as energy by empirical science, becomes conscious of itself only by appearing to itself as many. Individual conscious organisms are "he" or "she" but the One can only be "it," "It," "THAT" or "Vwi." Human beings approach oneness with the One by contemplation, not by temporary insanity.
10 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I still disagree. If God is real He can only be Person, not an "it."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
If.
Paul.
(But, meanwhile, an impersonal reality can be real. What of the argument that the self-other relationship is necessary for consciousness?)
Kaor, Paul!
Not an "if," IS.
But a mere impersonal "reality" cannot logically be GOD. A "reality," by itself (undefined), cannot be a Being. I argue that something which is God can only be a Person.
I also believe the revelation of the Trinity answers your objection about the self-other relationship.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I can say, "Not IS, if," and we can go on like that forever.
The Trinity is a rationalization of the Fourth Evangelist's deification of the Son and personification of the Spirit.
Again, I am not defending the application of the term "God" to an impersonal reality. We ought to leave the merely terminological question aside.
The reality is defined as what exists, that which is, identified as energy by physicists but conscious of itself in organisms with central nervous systems. It, THAT, is not (or not only) remote but also within us, "...closer than hands and feet."
Paul.
It's important not to mistake grammar for the things language refers to.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Now you seem to be alluding to what I vaguely recall about the Nominalist controversy.
Ad astra! Sean
The word, "God," causes endless confusion. One clear meaning is an extra-cosmic creator, thus a transcendent person to be referred to as "He" or just maybe as "She" but not as "it" or by any other impersonal pronoun. If a word were used with just one meaning, then there would be no confusion. However, that is not going to happen. Languages are creative and developmental. Any important word is always used in more than one sense. Hindu mystics can differ as to whether the object of their experience is personal or impersonal while continuing to apply the word, "God," to it.
My attempts at clarification include the following "sutras":
Every subjective experience is unique.
However, aspects of experience can be compared and classified.
Thus, numinous experience is of an awesome presence.
Mystical experience is of inner oneness.
Visionary experience is of projected visions.
Experiences are interpreted either theistically or non-theistically
Theists personify ultimate reality.
Persons are self-conscious individuals.
Self is recognized as such only by contrast with other.
Therefore, the One incorporates all persons but is not Itself a person.
It is "God" as the object of numinous and mystical experience but not as a transcendent person.
The One imagines that It is us.
We imagine the gods.
They are in us.
We are in It.
All is One.
Theists get into circular arguments like "If God exists, the He is God." Sure. That is true of anything.
then
Two more "sutras":
The One becomes conscious of Itself by appearing to Itself as other and many.
The single continuous reality perceives Itself as many organisms and their environment.
Post a Comment