In prior discussion, we elaborated there's no question of Lord being in a different place called heaven. This assumption contradicts omnipresence, which means there's no place where His presence is not.
It means you cannot say “Yes, but His splendor-beauty is greater in heaven than on earth”.
What's the logical flaw in this thinking?
To say that means His omnipresence is more present “over there” than “over here”.
That immediately subjects Him to time.
Because if I have to wait to enjoy His splendor in the future, then it means Lord is not here NOW in the present, which contradicts His omnipresence.
Add to that, if one has to wait to enjoy Him in the future, then how can God be omnipotent, which means absolute, highest power.
If Lord is bound by time, considering I have to wait to enjoy His presence in the future, then His omnipotence is limited by time.
In other words…
That which is omnipresent and omnipotent is never not available.
What denies knowledge of His total presence, here and now, is one's own ignorance.
For example, suppose you walk into a social gathering. Noticing people's gloominess, you start joking and teasing to cheer them.
Someone eventually informs you, “This gathering is mourning of a deceased husband. His children are devastated by his inhumane murder”.
Suddenly the facts dawn upon you. Ignorance is removed. Mind's perception aligns with the presence of truth.
It's not like you were immature. But owing to ignorance, it made your behavior unknowingly discordant with the environment.
Therefore, since Lord is omnipresent, it means we cannot attribute any specific form to Him. Because any form is dependent on space. Then the question comes, who created space to accommodate God?
Meaning Ishvara is formless, without attributes.
The student hasn't quite understood this, so he says, “Our minds cannot comprehend a principle which has no qualities or attributes. I agree Ishvara is One, but with a difference. It is One with infinite divine attributes.”
” If the Limitless One has attributes and qualities, how does it relate to them?
Does it own or possess the qualities as a man possesses his learned talents, or house?
If this would be true, then what what is the real nature of the Limitless One? And from where did the One acquire it's attributes from? From another God?
If the One is bunch of qualities and attributes, a logical problem arises.
Qualities change constantly, whether in intensity or quantity. And they're time bound. Our experience proves this definitely.
Then the Limitless One itself must change (according to your thinking), since it is attributes.
How then can we call a changeable principle, limitless?
Why would that which is infinite-complete… have a need to change? Is it unsatisfied with it's existing infinity?
Where is the question of omnipresence, omniscience, and all pervasiveness?
Omnipresence remains omnipresence in-and-through the changing universe, whose content is also the same omnipresence. Just as many changes occur in the dream. All the while the One dreamer is omnipresent throughout the changing dream.
For instance, suppose infinity changes from attribute A to attribute B.
Then how can you call it the infinite-omnipresence, if it no longer occupies A?
Thus the words infinite-limitless-omnipresence would be meaningless.
Therefore, if the One is to be the ever-present limitless principle — it cannot have attributes or qualities — because they will limit the Limitless Being.
The Limitless One like sunlight, untouched by what it reveals, blesses creation of infinite varieties, while itself remains a witness to it's myriad powers.
Such a One is what we call Limitless-Existence-Consciousness (Brahman).
Another problem of your hypothesis is, if the One has only divine attributes, then who has non-divine ones?
How will you explain the problems we see in the world?
To whom do they belong — the Limitless One, or to us?
In this way, your definition of the One, with so called divine-qualities — has no reasonable answer.
To reconcile, we need to understand that the attribute-less One without a Second — lends existence, but remains untouched.
If we look around us, we can see the One's all-pervading presence. It appears as myriad names-forms.
It exists without changing, such as — clay, gold, space in vessel — and other examples we used previously.
Again, what we call God (Ishvara), is the Limitless One (Brahman) with it's māyā power — pervading the universe of infinite names-forms.
Every aspect of existence is blessed as God's manifestation.
As for understanding the Limitless One — we cannot understand it as an object within our limited mind.
At the same time, you know you are a self-conscious being. This is a self-evident fact.
We need no external revelation to reveal our self-evident self-Consciousness.
But, to firmly grasp the equation between our self and the Limitless One — we need the words of our sacred books.
When the master, learned in the scriptures, takes us through the learning, step-by-step — until we comprehend there is just One without parts or attributes.
This One, is the real existent.
Rest are mithyā, dependent-reals.
Limitless-Existence-Consciousness, being the bases of the universe, is same as “I”, the self.
This we will doubtlessly come to permanently actualize in presence of a teacher.
This is the final comprehension, setting us free from the “I” ignorance.
Free from sense of limitation.
Total freedom in every way. ”
In next conversation, an objection based on a false premise is made, “Since we are seeking eternal happiness, the only way to it is through prayers and devotion. That way we will dissolve into the One.”
Mithya/Dependent real is none the less real; take a quark for example. Just like sophistry, a new word added to my vocabulary.
The waking dream will never provide constant bliss but something to aim for may be contentedness in passing, or in other words, a developed sense of nothingness in transience.
I’m weary of swinging the other way and polishing the will, insert some magick, and all that it can achieve and show. As a friend recently put it an m.c. can be a showman or Sharman. Although that said whilst we’re manifesting the high end of Collins street Melbourne, it may be wise to come out and play. The streets are filled with our demons to slay. The wisest go purposely unnoticed, missing front teeth and clean sheets. The homeless/holy men of this town gather where we dare not look.
Things are much too serious with high hells and ironed shirts. Much too much procreating and not enough recreating.
Well done with the beautiful piece of writing Andre :).
Mithya/Dependent real is none the less real; take a quark for example. Just like sophistry, a new word added to my vocabulary.
The waking dream will never provide constant bliss but something to aim for may be contentedness in passing, or in other words, a developed sense of nothingness in transience.
I’m weary of swinging the other way and polishing the will, insert some magick, and all that it can achieve and show. As a friend recently put it an m.c. can be a showman or Sharman. Although that said whilst we’re manifesting the high end of Collins street Melbourne, it may be wise to come out and play. The streets are filled with our demons to slay. The wisest go purposely unnoticed, missing front teeth and clean sheets. The homeless/holy men of this town gather where we dare not look.
Things are much too serious with high hells and ironed shirts. Much too much procreating and not enough recreating.
Well done with the beautiful piece of writing Andre :).
Thank you sir.