not sure where to put this

But since there are a lot of spiritually minded people (masons and otherwise) here, maybe this would be a good place to get some feedback.

Here is my take on the nature of God. This is an an excerpt from a book I'm writing called The Book of Light. I guess this is the first part where I talk about the nature of the consciousness (i.e., God).

I haven't written in this style before so feel free to comment on any aspect of this you wish. I'm not sure if I'll go with this style. Its quite difficult to get right.

---

In the Beginning

In the beginning, there was only consciousness.

In the beginning, there was only �I.�

In the beginning, there was a single speck of awareness, a single perspective
of self, and a single monadic spark.

In some ancient esoteric writings, this initial state of �I� is often conceptualized by a period or a point. This is a useful metaphor. The period has no dimensions, no experience of time, no beginning, and no end. It is just pure consciousness!

Pure thought!

And that is how it was, in the beginning.

Do you see?

In the beginning, there was only "ME."

�I� have always been and �I� always will be.

There has never been a time or a place or a space where �I� did not exist.

Neat eh?

Now, many of you will want to call the original �I� consciousness God and feel free to do exactly that. You can also call it Spirit or Nuit or whatever you want. The name you give it is, however, totally irrelevant. What is really important is that you get the nature of the original �I.�

You already know part of the nature. Pure consciousness, pure thought, and pure and powerful awareness. But there are others aspects of �I� besides this.

For example, in the beginning, �I� existed in total joy.

How could �I� not?

�I� was the light of all creation.

�I� was everything there was.

�I� was Alpha and Omega.

When you think about that it is really magnificent. In fact, it was (and is) pure
bliss. If "I" had had dimensions "I" could have been drawn with a huge grinning happy face or silly, crooked, grin. Perhaps this sounds a bit silly to you now sitting there all serious and concentrating in that chair, but trust me on this one, in the beginning �I� experienced total bliss.

Now, let us be clear here. To say that �I� existed in total bliss and joy is not to say that �I� was without intelligence. The original bliss and joy was not the mindless bliss of the lotus eater. �I� was not an empty mind. �I� was filled with the limitless potential of thought.

�I� was filled with complete and total awareness.

�I� was of infinite intelligence and �I� knew everything that there was, at that time, to know; and, what is even better, �I� was filled with the limitless potential of imagination.

Ok pause for a second.

Did you get that?

Are you sure?

This is important!

You must understand the nature of �I� here.

In the beginning, �I� had no limitations!

How could �I�?

Consciousness is without form, without shape, and without substance.

Consciousness is pure thought and thought has no limitations.

How can you limit dreams?

The Answer is, you cannot.

And so consciousness is pure potential without limit.

Well actually, that not quite true.

Consciousness does know one limitation.

Consciousness is limited by its own imagination. This much is obvious.

However, this limitation is only a theoretical limitation. In practice, the limitations of imagination are irrelevant because �I� have eternity think and in the unfolding of eternity it would not matter how dull �I� might be, I would eventually think of everything.

But of course, �I� am not dull!

�I� am an inferno of thought.

�I� am the fire of consciousness.

�I� am the light of creation.

�I� am the alpha and omega.

�I� am beginning without end.

�I� am the center of all things and,

�I� am in total control.

And so it was,

In the beginning!

I recognized that "I" was God without reading the top part. VeNice, but I'm not sure why you've posted it?

Do the knowledge:


The "I"

The Doctrine of Many "I's"

"Everyone believes that they know themselves and do not have even the faintest idea that there exist a Doctrine of the Many. Indeed, each person's psychological 'I' is multiple; it always consists of many. By this we mean that we have many selves and not just one, as is always assumed by learned ignoramuses. To deny the Doctrine of the Many is to make fools of ourselves.

In fact, it is the height of absurdity to ignore the intimate contradictions which each of us possess. 'I am going to read a newspaper,' says the 'I' of intellect. 'To heck with reading,' exclaims the 'I' of movement, 'I prefer to ride my bicycle.' 'Forget it,' shouts a third ego in disagreement, 'I'd rather eat, I'm hungry.' If we could see ourselves in a full-length mirror, just as we are, we would discover for ourselves directly the Doctrine of the Many. The human personality is only a marionette controlled by invisible strings. The ego which swears eternal love for Gnosis is later replaced by another which has nothing to do with the pledge; then the individual leaves. The 'I' which swears eternal love for one woman is later replaced by another one which has nothing to do with that oath. Then the person falls in love with another woman, and like a house of cards it all collapses.

The 'Intellectual Animal' mistakenly called human being is like a house filled with many people. There is no order or agreement among the multiple I's; they all quarrel with each other and fight for supremacy. When one of them gains control of the capital centers of the organic machine, it feels unique, a master. Nevertheless, in the end it is overthrown.

Considering the matter from this point of view, we come to the logical conclusion that the 'Intellectual Mammal' does not have a true sense of moral responsibility. Undoubtedly, whatever the machine says or does at a given time depends exclusively on the type of ego in control at that moment."

According to my understanding; The Eternal 'I Am' can shine only when the many "I's" of an individual have been utterly annihilated.




PEACE

I find solace in a couple passages of the Tao Te Ching:

Twenty

Give up learning, and put an end to your troubles.

Is there a difference between yes and no?
Is there a difference between good and evil?
Must I fear what others fear? What nonsense!
Other people are contented, enjoying the sacrificial feast of the ox.
In spring some go to the park, and climb the terrace,
But I alone am drifting, not knowing where I am.
Like a newborn babe before it learns to smile,
I am alone, without a place to go.
Others have more than they need, but I alone have nothing.
I am a fool. Oh, yes! I am confused.
Others are clear and bright,
But I alone am dim and weak.
Others are sharp and clever,
But I alone am dull and stupid.
Oh, I drift like the waves of the sea,
Without direction, like the restless wind.
Everyone else is busy,
But I alone am aimless and depressed.
I am different.
I am nourished by the great mother.

and

Twenty-one

The greatest Virtue is to follow Tao and Tao alone.
The Tao is elusive and intangible.
Oh, it is intangible and elusive, and yet within is image.
Oh, it is elusive and intangible, and yet within is form.
Oh, it is dim and dark, and yet within is essence.
This essence is very real, and therein lies faith.
From the very beginning until now its name has never been forgotten.
Thus I perceive the creation.
How do I know the ways of creation?
Because of this.

and in reference to a prior thread of michaelsharp:

Two

Under heaven all can see beauty as beauty only because there is ugliness.
All can know good as good only because there is evil.

Therefore having and not having arise together.
Difficult and easy complement each other.
Long and short contrast each other:
High and low rest upon each other;
Voice and sound harmonize each other;
Front and back follow one another.

Therefore the sage goes about doing nothing, teaching no-talking.
The ten thousand things rise and fall without cease,
Creating, yet not.
Working, yet not taking credit.
Work is done, then forgotten.
Therefore it lasts forever.


You may not understand, then again you might.
Take from it what you will.

Originally posted by Nexus
I recognized that "I" was God without reading the top part. VeNice, but I'm not sure why you've posted it?

you mean the post or the top explanation? Like I said, knew style and I'm just fishing for reaction to see if "it works" before getting to far

ms

Originally posted by Tamahu
Do the knowledge:


The "I"

The Doctrine of Many "I's"

"Everyone believes that they know themselves and do not have even the faintest idea that there exist a Doctrine of the Many. Indeed, each person's psychological 'I' is multiple; it always consists of many. By this we mean that we have many selves and not just one, as is always assumed by learned ignoramuses. To deny the Doctrine of the Many is to make fools of ourselves.

In fact, it is the height of absurdity to ignore the intimate contradictions which each of us possess. 'I am going to read a newspaper,' says the 'I' of intellect. 'To heck with reading,' exclaims the 'I' of movement, 'I prefer to ride my bicycle.' 'Forget it,' shouts a third ego in disagreement, 'I'd rather eat, I'm hungry.' If we could see ourselves in a full-length mirror, just as we are, we would discover for ourselves directly the Doctrine of the Many. The human personality is only a marionette controlled by invisible strings. The ego which swears eternal love for Gnosis is later replaced by another which has nothing to do with the pledge; then the individual leaves. The 'I' which swears eternal love for one woman is later replaced by another one which has nothing to do with that oath. Then the person falls in love with another woman, and like a house of cards it all collapses.

The 'Intellectual Animal' mistakenly called human being is like a house filled with many people. There is no order or agreement among the multiple I's; they all quarrel with each other and fight for supremacy. When one of them gains control of the capital centers of the organic machine, it feels unique, a master. Nevertheless, in the end it is overthrown.

Considering the matter from this point of view, we come to the logical conclusion that the 'Intellectual Mammal' does not have a true sense of moral responsibility. Undoubtedly, whatever the machine says or does at a given time depends exclusively on the type of ego in control at that moment."

According to my understanding; The Eternal 'I Am' can shine only when the many "I's" of an individual have been utterly annihilated.




PEACE

I guess I'm not really talking about the dimension of consciousness that we exist in which is multiple "I's" but the original state of unity. Although I think that to even though we have many desires and many things we like to do/need to do, it is a leap to jump from that conclusions about lack of morality or situational ethics.

As far as needing the many "I's" to be annihilated, I think this is based on the assumption that the original I AM and all the other monadic consciousness are seperate. They are not.

ms

Originally posted by cotwom
I find solace in a couple passages of the Tao Te Ching:

Twenty

Give up learning, and put an end to your troubles.

Is there a difference between yes and no?
Is there a difference between good and evil?
Must I fear what others fear? What nonsense!
Other people are contented, enjoying the sacrificial feast of the ox.
In spring some go to the park, and climb the terrace,
But I alone am drifting, not knowing where I am.
Like a newborn babe before it learns to smile,
I am alone, without a place to go.
Others have more than they need, but I alone have nothing.
I am a fool. Oh, yes! I am confused.
Others are clear and bright,
But I alone am dim and weak.
Others are sharp and clever,
But I alone am dull and stupid.
Oh, I drift like the waves of the sea,
Without direction, like the restless wind.
Everyone else is busy,
But I alone am aimless and depressed.
I am different.
I am nourished by the great mother.

and

Twenty-one

The greatest Virtue is to follow Tao and Tao alone.
The Tao is elusive and intangible.
Oh, it is intangible and elusive, and yet within is image.
Oh, it is elusive and intangible, and yet within is form.
Oh, it is dim and dark, and yet within is essence.
This essence is very real, and therein lies faith.
From the very beginning until now its name has never been forgotten.
Thus I perceive the creation.
How do I know the ways of creation?
Because of this.

and in reference to a prior thread of michaelsharp:

Two

Under heaven all can see beauty as beauty only because there is ugliness.
All can know good as good only because there is evil.

Therefore having and not having arise together.
Difficult and easy complement each other.
Long and short contrast each other:
High and low rest upon each other;
Voice and sound harmonize each other;
Front and back follow one another.

Therefore the sage goes about doing nothing, teaching no-talking.
The ten thousand things rise and fall without cease,
Creating, yet not.
Working, yet not taking credit.
Work is done, then forgotten.
Therefore it lasts forever.


You may not understand, then again you might.
Take from it what you will.

no I understand.

21 is an explanation of the nature of creation. Everything is contained within the mind of God.

20 , well, doesn't apply to me. maybe others

and 2 is a restatement of the doctrine of equilibrium which I don't agree with for reasons that I'm going to outline in the Book of Light. I think good and evil are temporary illussions that we accept in order to play "the game." They are neither permanent, nor necessary features of creation. The are situational and experimental.

ms