UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 1 to Meditation 35
A Response to Meditation 35

by Nicholas Fulford

To contribute further to this discussion, please use the Contact form. This discussion has been continued.

I'll address Meditation 35 point by point.

If God is perfect then God cannot change.

To change implies a local perspective in linear time. The perfection that is God as God, (not God as a projection of my ideas of God), is not bound by locality. (Think of integrating over the dimension of time so that what appears as change is merely one point or vector on the sphere of space-time.)

If God cannot change then God cannot interact with the rest of existence.

God as God (or that which is in itself) is not bound. Can God interact with the rest of existence? To this question, the answer must be that the rest of existence is a subset, a bounded manifestation within God. The designation of a subset is arbitrary, since by lack of definition God encompasses. (Think of trying to define emptiness by the locality of a point. The problem is that any point in emptiness is the same as the whole empty space. This is a classic paradox on one level and makes perfect sense on another.) The point is there is no "rest of existence". All things touch, are intertwined and express the underlying Reality that is experienced locally by us. To parse God is like parsing empty space.

If God cannot interact with the rest of existence then there is no way we can ever interact with God.

How do we then interact with God? The question presupposes that there is separation in fact between ourselves and "what is in itself". It presupposes that I have free will, and that is a fallacious assumption. The ego or self-identity acts as though it has free will, while it is continuously shaped and moved by events conscious and unconscious. That we have cognition, memory and the ability to project possible outcomes from our current position delivers the illusion of being self-willed. The physical universe, however, does not support this. The closest thing to a support for free will comes from quantum mechanics which points to the potential for physical indeterminism at a base level. This, however, is just a necessary condition for free will, and is not sufficient for free will. The events which occur from my position in space-time alter the "who" that perceives and interacts existentially.

If we cannot interact with God then we can never know anything about God.

The next question is: How can we interact with God? The lack of separation in fact between any of us and what we label as God addresses this point. God appears to interact with itself. From a local perspective this is not always easy to see, and yet, each surface can expand to unveil hidden qualities. The important thing is to be caught up in the beauty and mystery of unveiling the hidden without being fixated on defining it (to appease the fears of the ego.)

If we can never know anything about God we can treat God as non-existent from our viewpoint.

We can certainly treat God as non-existent, but to do so properly also requires that we treat ourselves as non-existent. Negation of the self-identity (and its projections) will permit an honesty that is otherwise obscured by the noise floor of the self-identity.

God as God does not fit into limited and dogmatic views. It is the precise lack of definition that makes the process of unfolding of existence mysterious and beautiful. The difficulty of "religion" is that it attempts to constrain, contain and reduce the mystery behind the veils of form / existence to a concrete and limited form.