Quote:
The Gospel According to Acharya S.
P.10 – “If it is not all encompassing, it is not God. Anything less than the totality is not God. The definition of God is omnipresence itself. Nothing is outside of God.”
One of the main things that sort of hit me like a load of bricks when I was in my early twenties is that omnipresence can only apply to the "realm of existence" itself, and by that I mean everything in the universe and beyond into all other universes spanning out infinitely. By associating the God concept with "omnipresence" and "eternity" the philosophical priesthood clearly symbolized the eternal realm of existence itself, the “totality” which is present in everything that exists forever and ever without end. The realm of existence is the source of all life, all energy, all consciousness, and is present everywhere that energy, life, and consciousness, are present. So to take another look at the quote by replacing the term “God” with the
eternal realm of existence itself:
Quote:
If it is not all encompassing, it is not the eternal realm of existence (God). Anything less than the totality is not the infinite realm of existence (God). The definition of the eternal realm of existence (God) is omnipresence itself. Nothing is outside of the eternal realm of existence (God).
Now after having realized this in-depth, and having my eyes opened to the full implications of what God entails, it became all too obvious that there's no possible way to then separate the omnipresent God from creation because that's equivalent to suggesting that the
"eternal realm of existence" is somehow separate, apart, and away from the earth and all of it's inhabitants which is evident nonsense.
Quote:
P. 11 – “True spirituality is defined not by separation but by union, union with the whole, union with the life force, Great Spirit, Tao, or God, that lies behind creation and binds it together. …Anything that imposes limits on infinite divinity is not a complete spiritual system or experience. …The ultimate truth, which is “God”cannot have any form whatsoever, no gender, no race and no hierarchy.”
To fully understand all of this naturally leads into the next concern that you touch on in the book which is that "God" speaks through everyone because the omnipresent
realm of existence itself isn't separate from anything in
existence, rather everything that
exists (creation) is formed out of the very realm itself. The realm is speaking through all of us whether we consider the langauge to be divine or profane because you can't draw a line of distinction between the two while focused on what
the definition of God as
omnipresent is actually suggesting.
Quote:
P. 31 – “The point is that even to religious fanatics God is omnipresent and, as such, is not, cannot be and never will be contained in one book, no matter how many times the cheerleaders of that book threaten eternal damnation and punishment. If God is omnipresent – a device conveniently used by these selfsame preachers, priests and imams to scare people, e.g., “God is watching you at all times” – then God is contained in everything, and that means every book, each person, every animal and rock. That universality is the definition of omnipresence. In case the religionists still don’t get that fact, let’s spell it out:
"omnipresent : present in all places at all times” – Webster’s
Case closed. It is not possible for an omnipresent divinity to be here but not there. It is impossible for an omnipresent deity to be absent from someplace – that fact remains the bottom line. Therefore – paradoxically to the notion that arrogant individuals who pretend to speak for God are misrepresenting themselves – every book and every individual that claims to be speaking for God must be right, even those which say God is an utterly bogus concept designed to enslave the human race.”
Truly enlightened human beings are certainly those who have come to a place of understanding the definition of omnipresence, as is evident in this dialogue between Joseph Campbell and Sri Krishna Menon of India that I'll post for those reading through the thread who are currently unfamiliar with it:
Quote:
Myths of Light: eastern metaphors of the eternal
“If that is achieved, if one manages to reach an undifferentiated state of consciousness while awake, then there are two responses. Suppose that you have found the light, and contemplated this still pond. You may let the body fall off, close the eyes, as it were, and unite with this central transcendent realization. Or you may open the eyes and take delight in the PLAY OF FORMS, seeing through them the ONE FORM [the realm itself as the one thing common to all]. That is the attitude of WORLD AFFIRMATION, the affirmation of every single THING, even the MONSTERS.
When I was in India, I listened around awhile to see who the WISE MAN would be that I would choose to have my principle mystical discussion with. I chose one who lived in the world EYES OPEN. He had been a policeman, not a very highly regarded profession in India, and he was, nevertheless, a great saint. We greeted each other respectfully, and he asked,
“Do you have a question?"
...What I asked him was, "If, as we know, all things are Brahman, are this DIVINE ENERGY, then why do we renounce the world, why do we renounce vice, why do we renounce stupidity? Why do we not see the DIVINE ENERGY shinning through the most BRUTAL, the most HORRENDOUS, the most STUPID, and the most DARK?
He responded, “For you and me, that is where it is!"
"For you and me (those living in the world with their eyes open), that is where it (the divine energy of existence) is!" Now that makes a lot of sense from the perspective of understanding the meaning and definition of "omnipresence" but it makes very little sense from the perspective of using the term "omnipresence" without understanding the full extent of term, as is the case with nearly every monotheist in the world. This forces the conclusion, as is pointed out in the Gospel, that everything is "Gods Word" and divinely inspired. I see that as relating to everyone of the religious writings in the world, to the mornings news paper headlines, to every post in this conversational forum for that matter.
The question of whether the Bible is God or Mans "word" is easily proven to be the work of man. But then the question of "what is man?" comes into focus. Well, man is but a manifestation of the
eternal realm of existence itself and is therefore ultimately "one" with that which the "omnipresent” God concept is used to symbolize in mythology and religion. So while the Bible is clearly written by man, and proven as such many times over with all of it's priesthood inspired sections on cannibalism, ritual sacrifice, slavery, raping and belittling women and small girls, murdering whole cities etc. ("the most brutal, the most horrendous, the most stupid, and the most dark..."), it's also quite clear that it's still inspired by the "omnipresent" God nonetheless from the deeper eye opening realization. When the priesthood wrote, "God says..." it's the case of
existence itself speaking right through the people doing the writing. But likewise, when we in the modern era expose the ancient priesthood for what they've done in deceiving and confusing so many people over the years, it's also the "omnipresent" God force or energy speaking through those who speak on behalf of the mythicist position as well. We certainly play a role in the dialogue that
existence is constantly having with itself as "the play of forms" continues:
Quote:
Therefore – paradoxically to the notion that arrogant individuals who pretend to speak for God are misrepresenting themselves – every book and every individual that claims to be speaking for God must be right, even those which say God is an utterly bogus concept designed to enslave the human race.
I haven't finished the book yet, but when I do I'll leave a few more comments on some of the other topics of interest. As of getting to just half way through the book it's occurred to me that we as the mythicist community of the world could actually start up something along the lines of what was happening during first century among the learned Alexandrian mystics, but with the exception of not using obscure allegorical writings to relay the "Good News". What if a lot of us start writing modernized "Gospels" from a modern perspective which states everything about the astrotheogical function, and it's relation to the mystical function of mythology, very plainly and clearly to the average Joe citizen of the world. After reading this far, I'm tempted to start working on a "Gospel" of my own to add to what may eventually become the mythicist cannon some day.
Quote:
”…The ultimate truth, which is “God” cannot have any form whatsoever, no gender, no race and no hierarchy.”
Maybe if people start writing a lot of modernized "Gospels" the writings may possibly gain enough momentum by the end of "...the present evil age" to set the world "free" from the orthodox hierarchical system of religious authority during "...the age to come." There’s no place for a system of religious hierarchy with a state of divine "omnipresence" that already resides within everyone and everything in the world (and simultaneously the whole of the universe, and infinitely beyond). There's no middle man or middle organization of man that "literally" stands between what the eternal God symbolizes in religion and the common people of the community. Everyone in the world is perfectly equal in that specific sense of defining "omnipresence". The western spirituality of the future must present in some way a vision of eternal equality among everyone and I consider that to be a "divinely inspired" assertion to add to the long list!
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
good day to you."
