My mental image of that which we call God amongst other names

Introduction

If this note is here then this is still only a work in progress. So let me know what you think. This is still VERY much just thoughts on paper a thought stream.
This is also only a working title, so any ideas?

Forget everything you have in your mind about your image of a Higher Power so that you can get a picture of my mental image. (Please feel free to pick up your own again after you have read mine. It is not my intention to influence your own image in anyway. I purely wish to show you mine.)

This is being written for my own benefit and I might never even publish this. Its intention is to help me to formulate my thoughts and feelings into an organised thought stream.

Often I will refer to what I do not believe in rather than that which I do believe in as it is my understanding that a lot can been explained by mentioning missing qualities rather than qualities actually present in an understanding.

Much of what I have to say has to do with definitions as much as it has to do with explanations thus I will begin in the form of a glossary.

Most often in writings on this subject authors refer to the texts of other mystics or sources to back up their reasoning. I will not be doing this at all, as I feel that the subject matter can be explained clearly enough without doing this and that attempting to back the subject up with references confuses the matter unduly. Therefore it needs to be said at the outset that my understandings come from just such writings and from the teachings of the great mystics of all time and are nothing but my intellectual beliefs. There will be a section on all sources at the end on completion.

“The One” – That or whom we most often refer to as God.

One of the biggest connotations of the word God has always conjured up this image of a Zeus like God sitting in a chair somewhere ruling over this earth like some king on a throne. This denoted for me that this God lived somewhere else, apart from this, “His creation”. Due to a lack of understanding it seems we always have to use anthropomorphosis in our attempt to refer to “The One”.

The problem with the name God is that a male being, similar in nature to a parent is most often inferred.

Recently having read about Brian Hines’s latest book, based on the teachings of an ancient philosopher named Plotinus, “Return to The One”. I like the usage of “The One” as a name for that which is commonly known as God and will use it throughout this essay, as it has none of the above connotations.

This is one of the prime examples of explaining by saying what something is not to explain what it could be. It is my humble opinion that we are not capable of understanding what “The One” is and that we are also not able to truly understand even the concepts involved. Yet in the beginning in order to follow some form of spiritual path or even for us to entertain the idea of doing this, we need to be intellectually satisfied with what “The One” could be. We have to have a mental image that we feel content with, to facilitate even our exploration of the subject.

"The One" has been referred to as being "Omnipotent, Omnicient and Omnipresent" which roughly translated means "All powerful, All knowing and Everywhere" If everything is "The One" then this is by all rights correct. I believe we exist within "The One" and not apart from "The One". If we consider ourself to be conscious beings then does it not stand to reason that that which we are a part of must also be conscious with our consciousness being a part of its consciousness. If the whole universe is thought to be infinite and it is part of "The One" then "The One" must be larger than infinite which implies an infinite consciousness.

Science has in fact thus proved the existence of "The One". We are all staring at "The One" at all times and we do not see it. We all feel "The One" and do not realise"The One". We eat, sleep, breath "The One". "The One" is quite literally everything or rather everything is in fact part of "The One"

“Separation” – Why the one emanated or projected something apart from “The One” – Duality

So often I have been told not to question why “The One” “created” separate souls or that which feels it is separate. It was in Neil Donald Walsh’s book “Conversations with God”, I gained the concept of “The One” needing to understand, experience and know “The One” or itself as a acceptable explanation for me to continue with formulating an image of “The One”.

We are simply that which currently does not remember it is “The One” or part of the whole. An over simplified example would be the following:

“If we know that we are made up of that which makes up the universe why do we think we are not just that, part of the universe and if the universe is made up of that which is “The One” then are we not just that too. We are part of “The One”. If you can get your thoughts around that you will have a better understanding of my mental image.

This makes us all identical and at the same time we are in fact made up “in” the image of “The One”.

“Souls”- The parts of “The One” that feel separated

So then what is the soul in relation to “The One”? Simply explained it is a part of the one that is now unaware that is in fact a part of “The One” and sees itself as apart from or separate.

“Saints, Mystics, Gurus etc” – Those that are aware that they are part of “The One”

So therefore True Saints, Mystics, Gurus etc. are in fact souls that have realised they are not separate but actually apart of “The one” by experiencing this for themselves.

“Knowledge versus Belief” – A crucial difference

Knowing something and believing something is incredibly different. You know what you know but you can still change what you believe. What you know is definite, what you believe is just that a belief based on an understanding or misunderstanding. The differences between and theory and fact are self-evident.

“Good and Evil” – An explanation

This to the writer is the most confused subject in the study of mysticism and spirituality. At the outset, let me say, I do not believe in the concepts of “Good and Evil” or “Good and Bad” or even “Right and Wrong”. I thought of using plus and minus, Up and Down but all of these denote the same connotation as “Good and evil”.

The easiest way for me to explain this is to simply say that actions achieve one of to directions or results. They either lead you towards the truth or away from it.

In this light I will attempt to explain the concept of judgment. Judgement does not exist in the way that we generally accept it. This would infer the idea of “Right and wrong”. Think of it more as a constant balancing out of actions taking you either towards or away from the truth. There is no judgement day and thus no judge. There is just the constant balancing of the two possible results of actions that we then perceive as “Good and Bad” etc. depending on our relative positions. This infers that even in spiritual matter Newton’s law stating “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” applies. It also infers that we are beholden to all of our actions and that the scientific law of balance must always apply. This is commonly known as the theory of Karma, which I will go into later together with the concept of reincarnation and transmigration of the soul.

Thoughts to be used and built up upon in this essay

We are nothing but Star Dust and have existed since the big bang. It thus stands to reason that we have existed in some form in that which caused the big bang. We or that which we are made up of, has always existed and will always exist. Possibly the form of the matter will change much like water being separated into Hydrogen and Oxygen, the atoms are still the same atoms. You have always and will always exist.

Memory can be stored in a magnetic medium. Many forms of matter have magnetic properties. It is just possible that memory has been stored in matter of everything and everyone who has ever been and is in fact available to sensitive beings and could at some stage even be accessed by some form of machine or man made equipment.
Between magnetism and conductivity, every molecule is actually directly connected to every other molecule in the universe in a direct chain and it stands to reason that like data being transmitted along a cable we technically should be able to read each other magnetic signatures if we were sensitive enough.
If as scientists say we only use 10% of our capabilities, what is the other 90% to be used for?
Is it not true that both sound and light are but waves of the electro-magnetic spectrum?
Are there waves and frequencies we have not read or found yet?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

One of my favourite quotations from a "Faithless" song is;

"You're not going to Nirvana or Farvana, you're coming right back here to live out your Karma."

If every person on this planet understood this, do you think it would make a difference to their behaviour?

If every human being was aware that they will be held responsible for each and every action, do you think it would change the actions they take?

When I mention Karma to any of my friends, they immediately roll their eyes thinking that I am getting all "airy fairy" on them. It amazes me that people cannot understand just how scientifically sound the theory of Karma is. It is easier to understand Karma than Einstein's theory of relativity.

Karma is nothing but cause and effect in operation or another way of seeing it is Newton's 3rd law which states "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." It is not "airy fairy". IT IS PURE SCIENCE.

Let me try and give a few scenarios so that we might be able to understand it better. As scientific as it is, the chains of causality seldom work in direct chains of one link reacting directly to the link that pulled on it. Often the chain of causality is long and intricate. (I believe that there is a reason for that but more about that later.) You have to trace the effect back through many interconnecting actions to find the source action. Much like tracing the force that moves the hands of a clock, back to the originating spring or motor and even then the energy that set that all in motion came from either someone winding the clock or from a battery. Then you have to ask, "Where did the energy come from to either wind the clock or watch or to charge the battery. Are you starting to get the picture yet? Now very simply;

If you wind a clock, you get to see the time.

Now imagine all the forces that fill the specific chain, between you winding the clock and seeing the time change. If you break these actions down to sub-atomic/quantum physics, believe me when I say that the chain of causality has a practically uncountable number of links, yet here it is still pretty obvious what the effects of winding a clock are to almost anyone.

There are different levels of Karmic links and as the levels of linking become more complex, the original cause becomes more and more obscure and invisible to us until it becomes impossible to find the original or source action or actions.

Let me begin with some easy examples, which everyone can easily follow and I will attempt to build on each example a little to show how a few links in between can affect and hide causality from us.

• If you apply something very hot to your own skin, you WILL burn yourself.
• If you apply something very hot to someone else, you WILL burn them and they will most likely be angry and will most likely retaliate in some way or another.
• If you apply something very hot to someone else's child, you WILL burn it and their parents will most likely be angry and will most likely retaliate in some way or another. As an exercise, think about the scenario where the child is too young to tell its parents and you choose to not tell them the truth about what happened. This now complicates the chain of events does it not? Now comes the dilemma; will you actually get away with this? What if the child later remembers this and when it’s older tells its parents and they just stop talking to you? Would you be able to link the two events together?
  
  What if when the child tells its parents, they have moved overseas and they tell another friend still living near you about this and you hear via the grape vine that these seemingly strangers refer to you as the “child hurter”? Could you link this all together?
  To most people the last example would be extremely difficult to understand and they might find it unfair that strangers could be so cruel and mean but are they really being so? Have you in fact been treated unfairly taking all facts into account?