Whilst I greatly enjoy reading what you have to say, I am also vividly aware that in my experience there is a level of conceptualisation in what you’ve shared that is innately of little interest to me. I start to feel spiritually claustrophobic. I get the impression you have read far more and are far better versed in traditional eastern perspectives on Enlightenment and the spiritual path than I am. I admire your persistent seeking in this field.

I get to see in your display of words that which has for much of my life moved me to avoid spiritual tradition as much as possible. It was a choice-less choice. One that arose out of a strong propensity to stick with what my own inner experience reveals to me from moment to moment.

Explanations of various levels of consciousness do little for me, except perhaps to make me aware that I have an aversion to such things. I don’t wish to imply that I negate such things nor that I invalidate them, for I am intimately aware that EVERYTHING has it’s place and function within the perfection of All That Is and within the perceived world of she who experiences such things. I simply speak for myself and the way in which God / Life / Infinity moves me and moves through me.

Tell me, have you unleashed (or “attained” if that works better for you) within your experience of Andrew this thing you call “self-realisation” ?
Has “God Realisation” emerged within your awareness ?
Is that where you reside in this moment?
And this “Unity consciousness”… in your own direct experience, where are you at with this thing you call “unity consciousness” ?
And these saints you talk about… how many of them have you met in this experience of time you call “Andrew’s life so far” ?
Perhaps more importantly… how many of these so-called “saints” have you failed to meet ?

Yes, of course the stillness and deep peace within the consciousness of Man is “a path to God”… and it is this path that people reading these words are seeking in one way or another. It is also this particular “path to God” that is so often veiled by the insane concepts of God that most of the people in this world are infected and burdened with.
As for “God-proper”, I can’t claim to know just what you are talking about.

I’ve never met this chap Nisargadatta — in fact I’ve never even heard of him until now — so I am really in no position to comment. I guess he was someone interesting, otherwise you wouldn’t have heard about him either, right? Where can I meet him?

I am not sure what you mean by “pep talks” either. Boy oh boy… please excuse my ignorance.

When I say we should avoid personifying God I say this in direct response to the way in which the majority of people (in my experience) personify God.
The bible says “God create man in his own likeness”.
I would be inclined to say that “Man (the ego-mind) fashioned God in his own likeness”.
As far as I can ascertain the concept that most believers in God hold with regards to who and what God is are really just a projection of their own ego-mind, the very same projection that results in their perception that they are somehow something less than what they really are. Their own persona as a limited ego concept. God it something “out there”.
How many people look UPWARD when they pray?
Where do they think they are looking?
What are they looking upward toward? Heaven perhaps? Does heaven, and God for that matter, have a geographical position?
Then the prayer itself… how often do people request something of God; attempt to enter into deals with God, to bargain with God, to thank God, to blame God — like some sort of almighty paternal figurehead that will look after them if they are a good boy or girl and punish them if they are “naughty” or “bad”.

Again, I don’t negate this sort of madness within the experience of those who entertain such things. What is real for them is real for them. Yahoo !!
That is really none of my business and of little interest to me. Yet I must too remain true to the experience that unfolds within my own awareness. If, in the eyes of man, this stance happens to appear to go against what some people experience as valid and real in their world then so be it. That too is none of my business, and it’s quite okay with me. It is what it is — consciousness unfolding. I am against no-thing, yet something within “me” is very much “for the the Truth”, and that Truth is only true to the extent that it is unfolding within That which I Am and That which I am Aware.

If my stance toward Truth and my apparent rejection of much of what many people have come to value so greatly in this world and within their so-called “spiritual life” — such as their insane concept of God — and in their perception of themselves… if my apparent rejection of these things offends them or results in a person feeling disturbed then I can only conclude that they were already deeply insecure in what their perception was showing to them in the first place, and this disturbance is the very thing that — with awareness — might lead them down the rabbit hole (so to speak).
Not that I aim for this nor do I make an effort to unveil the disturbance that is within most people. Most people have a pretty good handle on that themselves. I know I do. That’s not my place nor my role in this world, yet there are people that will use Jonathan for that function in their world, and I remain present with that.

“accepting the impersonal absolute while killing a personal God” — hmmmm, perhaps it would be wise to again read what I wrote, for I continue to get the impression that you’ve not understood what I’ve said. It’s likely this is a result of my failure to explain things clearly enough. I trust that the innate Genius within you will manage to figure it out despite such failing.
“God” is just a word, a symbol. It is a symbol that for many is charged with a huge amount of concept and through-forms. Concept that is maintained through the illusion of the ego-mind and hence is against the realisation of THAT which humanity is attempting to refer to with this word “God” that you and I are using.
I have not stated that people should deny their experience of That which we call God. In fact, on the contrary, I might be inclined to say that their direct experience of God is about the only thing they should perhaps bother to value.

I gather from what you are saying that you either have a very good intellectual understanding of these things such as “God” and the spiritual path etcetera or (perhaps AND) you have some direct experience of what you’ve shared. If the later is true then Amen to That. May it pour forth from you heart and mind into the world you perceive around you and within you. What a blessing. What a gift. What a joy. May that Light within the lucidity of your mind arose such Light in those people you are here in this world to help Heal.

As a dear friend in Switzerland would say…. either you’ve got it, or not. If you’ve got it, then great, if you haven’t then forget it.
It’s perfect either way. As you know.

With love,

Jonathan

Whilst I greatly enjoy reading what you have to say, I am also vividly aware that in my experience there is a level of conceptualisation in what you’ve shared that is innately of little interest to me. I start to feel spiritually claustrophobic. I get the impression you have read far more and are far better versed in traditional eastern perspectives on Enlightenment and the spiritual path than I am. I admire your persistent seeking in this field.

I get to see in your display of words that which has for much of my life moved me to avoid spiritual tradition as much as possible. It was a choice-less choice. One that arose out of a strong propensity to stick with what my own inner experience reveals to me from moment to moment.

Explanations of various levels of consciousness do little for me, except perhaps to make me aware that I have an aversion to such things. I don’t wish to imply that I negate such things nor that I invalidate them, for I am intimately aware that EVERYTHING has it’s place and function within the perfection of All That Is and within the perceived world of she who experiences such things. I simply speak for myself and the way in which God / Life / Infinity moves me and moves through me.

Tell me, have you unleashed (or “attained” if that works better for you) within your experience of Andrew this thing you call “self-realisation” ?
Has “God Realisation” emerged within your awareness ?
Is that where you reside in this moment?
And this “Unity consciousness”… in your own direct experience, where are you at with this thing you call “unity consciousness” ?
And these saints you talk about… how many of them have you met in this experience of time you call “Andrew’s life so far” ?
Perhaps more importantly… how many of these so-called “saints” have you failed to meet ?

Yes, of course the stillness and deep peace within the consciousness of Man is “a path to God”… and it is this path that people reading these words are seeking in one way or another. It is also this particular “path to God” that is so often veiled by the insane concepts of God that most of the people in this world are infected and burdened with.
As for “God-proper”, I can’t claim to know just what you are talking about.

I’ve never met this chap Nisargadatta — in fact I’ve never even heard of him until now — so I am really in no position to comment. I guess he was someone interesting, otherwise you wouldn’t have heard about him either, right? Where can I meet him?

I am not sure what you mean by “pep talks” either. Boy oh boy… please excuse my ignorance.

When I say we should avoid personifying God I say this in direct response to the way in which the majority of people (in my experience) personify God.
The bible says “God create man in his own likeness”.
I would be inclined to say that “Man (the ego-mind) fashioned God in his own likeness”.
As far as I can ascertain the concept that most believers in God hold with regards to who and what God is are really just a projection of their own ego-mind, the very same projection that results in their perception that they are somehow something less than what they really are. Their own persona as a limited ego concept. God it something “out there”.
How many people look UPWARD when they pray?
Where do they think they are looking?
What are they looking upward toward? Heaven perhaps? Does heaven, and God for that matter, have a geographical position?
Then the prayer itself… how often do people request something of God; attempt to enter into deals with God, to bargain with God, to thank God, to blame God — like some sort of almighty paternal figurehead that will look after them if they are a good boy or girl and punish them if they are “naughty” or “bad”.

Again, I don’t negate this sort of madness within the experience of those who entertain such things. What is real for them is real for them. Yahoo !!
That is really none of my business and of little interest to me. Yet I must too remain true to the experience that unfolds within my own awareness. If, in the eyes of man, this stance happens to appear to go against what some people experience as valid and real in their world then so be it. That too is none of my business, and it’s quite okay with me. It is what it is — consciousness unfolding. I am against no-thing, yet something within “me” is very much “for the the Truth”, and that Truth is only true to the extent that it is unfolding within That which I Am and That which I am Aware.

If my stance toward Truth and my apparent rejection of much of what many people have come to value so greatly in this world and within their so-called “spiritual life” — such as their insane concept of God — and in their perception of themselves… if my apparent rejection of these things offends them or results in a person feeling disturbed then I can only conclude that they were already deeply insecure in what their perception was showing to them in the first place, and this disturbance is the very thing that — with awareness — might lead them down the rabbit hole (so to speak).
Not that I aim for this nor do I make an effort to unveil the disturbance that is within most people. Most people have a pretty good handle on that themselves. I know I do. That’s not my place nor my role in this world, yet there are people that will use Jonathan for that function in their world, and I remain present with that.

“accepting the impersonal absolute while killing a personal God” — hmmmm, perhaps it would be wise to again read what I wrote, for I continue to get the impression that you’ve not understood what I’ve said. It’s likely this is a result of my failure to explain things clearly enough. I trust that the innate Genius within you will manage to figure it out despite such failing.
“God” is just a word, a symbol. It is a symbol that for many is charged with a huge amount of concept and through-forms. Concept that is maintained through the illusion of the ego-mind and hence is against the realisation of THAT which humanity is attempting to refer to with this word “God” that you and I are using.
I have not stated that people should deny their experience of That which we call God. In fact, on the contrary, I might be inclined to say that their direct experience of God is about the only thing they should perhaps bother to value.

I gather from what you are saying that you either have a very good intellectual understanding of these things such as “God” and the spiritual path etcetera or (perhaps AND) you have some direct experience of what you’ve shared. If the later is true then Amen to That. May it pour forth from you heart and mind into the world you perceive around you and within you. What a blessing. What a gift. What a joy. May that Light within the lucidity of your mind arose such Light in those people you are here in this world to help Heal.

As a dear friend in Switzerland would say…. either you’ve got it, or not. If you’ve got it, then great, if you haven’t then forget it.
It’s perfect either way. As you know.

With love,

Jonathan

I re-read you post and I agree with most of what you say too! I just felt some emotive element when I read it first – about killing God and letting him rot in hell. When I was learning about these concepts I found pep talks frustrating – like I had to make a big effort somehow – step up to the challenge and fight etc, but really it was quiet inquiry and understanding that worked for me. Sure it was a challenge and a fight, but that wasn’t the focus. The focus is not a war cry, but simply to learn what a concept is.

>So neither should we personify that which we call “God” in discussing the fact that “It” has been attempting to reach into your awareness since the beginning of time. It is nothing personal. Yet the experience of it is deeply intimate.

I disagree with this because you are referring to the impersonal Absolute and denying the valid personal aspect. The impersonal does not move, or attempt to reach us. As it has no qualities or manifest capacity, it just can’t do anything. It isn’t even anything!

The intelligence, wisdom, peace, feelings of intimacy etc, all arise from contact with the impersonal, but they are relative and personal qualities. This personal aspect is where all the joy and evolution is. And the personal can and does manifest as a personal God – like Lord Shiva, Jesus Christ, Mother Divine. These aspects of the whole can bless us with the intelligence and grace to evolve. They literally govern all of creation.

So my point is that even a concept of a personal God, like Lord Shiva, is to be embraced. But aspirants should be encouraged to either deepen and refine their love for the deity or to look to whom the concept appears. One path is feminine and one is masculine and each aspirant should follow the one they find most suitable. This is Ramana Maharshi’s view (yes, I’m a big fan of him ). So devotion to a concept of God is fine, and with increased refinement its truth will reveal itself in time. I guess this is where I perceived some imbalance in your post – accepting the impersonal absolute while killing a personal God. I feel both paths are valid. Many aspirants worship God with no knowledge of the absolute side of life. This is fine because when their devotion matures the absolute will become apparent.

Ultimately, all life is nothing more than a concept, a non-existent super-imposition, and so there is no God and no-one to know that! When we accept the concept that we exist as an individual and that the world exists, then we can accept the concept of a personal God.

>There is a still, calm centre within all of us that is That which we refer to as God, and it is deeply Peaceful.

In my view, this is the path toward God, but is not God proper. There are plenty of people who say that Self-Realisation is God-Realisation. I don’t see it this way. Self-Realisation is more or less a state of glorified detachment. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi calls this state Cosmic Consciousness and he also calls it ‘enlightened ignorance’ because the person is basically the same, except they experience unbounded awareness 24/7. It is not a state of happiness – in fact the person can still experience depression, only they witness it. They see themselves as separate from activity and are thus free from suffering. This is all Buddha taught – freedom from suffering.

God-Realisation is when the heart and the senses have been developed to include the infinite values of relative life. They perceive the finest levels of creation and experience the heart overflowing with love and devotion. So here is the fullness of the absolute and the fullness of the relative. A person in God Consciousness is truly a saint and extremely rare in today’s world. But even in GC a level of separation still remains. Beyond GC is Unity Consciousness (also called Brahman Consciousness) whereby only the Self is perceived, and though the Self may manifest in various forms, it is all directly experienced as being infinite and unbounded. At this extremely high level of evolution one can create and destroy universes, as all is the Self. And one can honestly say I AM GOD. And there is no fear for there is no separation.

Nisargadatta gives a vague analogy of this. Someone asked him what is beyond self-awareness. He said in the beginning it’s like being in a jungle full of tigers. Initial enlightenment you are in a cage in the jungle. The next level you are in the jungle and the tigers are in the cage. After that you ride the tigers fearlessly through the jungle!

I could go on and on about this because it is so fascinating, but I think that is enough for now. Keep posting, Jonathan. I like what you say and enjoy the food for thought!

Peace,
Andrew.

I re-read you post and I agree with most of what you say too! I just felt some emotive element when I read it first – about killing God and letting him rot in hell. When I was learning about these concepts I found pep talks frustrating – like I had to make a big effort somehow – step up to the challenge and fight etc, but really it was quiet inquiry and understanding that worked for me. Sure it was a challenge and a fight, but that wasn’t the focus. The focus is not a war cry, but simply to learn what a concept is.

>So neither should we personify that which we call “God” in discussing the fact that “It” has been attempting to reach into your awareness since the beginning of time. It is nothing personal. Yet the experience of it is deeply intimate.

I disagree with this because you are referring to the impersonal Absolute and denying the valid personal aspect. The impersonal does not move, or attempt to reach us. As it has no qualities or manifest capacity, it just can’t do anything. It isn’t even anything!

The intelligence, wisdom, peace, feelings of intimacy etc, all arise from contact with the impersonal, but they are relative and personal qualities. This personal aspect is where all the joy and evolution is. And the personal can and does manifest as a personal God – like Lord Shiva, Jesus Christ, Mother Divine. These aspects of the whole can bless us with the intelligence and grace to evolve. They literally govern all of creation.

So my point is that even a concept of a personal God, like Lord Shiva, is to be embraced. But aspirants should be encouraged to either deepen and refine their love for the deity or to look to whom the concept appears. One path is feminine and one is masculine and each aspirant should follow the one they find most suitable. This is Ramana Maharshi’s view (yes, I’m a big fan of him ). So devotion to a concept of God is fine, and with increased refinement its truth will reveal itself in time. I guess this is where I perceived some imbalance in your post – accepting the impersonal absolute while killing a personal God. I feel both paths are valid. Many aspirants worship God with no knowledge of the absolute side of life. This is fine because when their devotion matures the absolute will become apparent.

Ultimately, all life is nothing more than a concept, a non-existent super-imposition, and so there is no God and no-one to know that! When we accept the concept that we exist as an individual and that the world exists, then we can accept the concept of a personal God.

>There is a still, calm centre within all of us that is That which we refer to as God, and it is deeply Peaceful.

In my view, this is the path toward God, but is not God proper. There are plenty of people who say that Self-Realisation is God-Realisation. I don’t see it this way. Self-Realisation is more or less a state of glorified detachment. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi calls this state Cosmic Consciousness and he also calls it ‘enlightened ignorance’ because the person is basically the same, except they experience unbounded awareness 24/7. It is not a state of happiness – in fact the person can still experience depression, only they witness it. They see themselves as separate from activity and are thus free from suffering. This is all Buddha taught – freedom from suffering.

God-Realisation is when the heart and the senses have been developed to include the infinite values of relative life. They perceive the finest levels of creation and experience the heart overflowing with love and devotion. So here is the fullness of the absolute and the fullness of the relative. A person in God Consciousness is truly a saint and extremely rare in today’s world. But even in GC a level of separation still remains. Beyond GC is Unity Consciousness (also called Brahman Consciousness) whereby only the Self is perceived, and though the Self may manifest in various forms, it is all directly experienced as being infinite and unbounded. At this extremely high level of evolution one can create and destroy universes, as all is the Self. And one can honestly say I AM GOD. And there is no fear for there is no separation.

Nisargadatta gives a vague analogy of this. Someone asked him what is beyond self-awareness. He said in the beginning it’s like being in a jungle full of tigers. Initial enlightenment you are in a cage in the jungle. The next level you are in the jungle and the tigers are in the cage. After that you ride the tigers fearlessly through the jungle!

I could go on and on about this because it is so fascinating, but I think that is enough for now. Keep posting, Jonathan. I like what you say and enjoy the food for thought!

Peace,
Andrew.

As I agree whole-heartedly with what you have said I am not entirely sure what it is you are referring to as an “imbalance” in my “comments about God”. I suspect either you have misinterpreted something I wrote or I simply need further elaboration from you on the point you are making re the imbalance.

As for your other comments… bravo !!

I enjoyed reading what you have shared. Thanks for taking the time to write as you have.

And yes, as for the balance of the Feminine and Masculine approaches to “life, the universe, and everything”, I agree with what you have said and I shall add that I feel that this is why the death of God is inevitable. As per the angle taken in my article, I am of course referring to the “concept of God” as opposed to That which is symbolised by this word “God”. This “death” is inevitable because that portion of the human collective that maintains a perspective on God (those that “Believe in God” and those that “Do not believe in God”) are for the most part very much adhering to a rather “masculine” perspective of this God that they do or do not believe in.

The sublime loving softness of Spirit / God / Infinity (etc) is all too often missed in the masculine view of That which we are referring to.

With love and Peace,

Jonathan

As I agree whole-heartedly with what you have said I am not entirely sure what it is you are referring to as an “imbalance” in my “comments about God”. I suspect either you have misinterpreted something I wrote or I simply need further elaboration from you on the point you are making re the imbalance.

As for your other comments… bravo !!

I enjoyed reading what you have shared. Thanks for taking the time to write as you have.

And yes, as for the balance of the Feminine and Masculine approaches to “life, the universe, and everything”, I agree with what you have said and I shall add that I feel that this is why the death of God is inevitable. As per the angle taken in my article, I am of course referring to the “concept of God” as opposed to That which is symbolised by this word “God”. This “death” is inevitable because that portion of the human collective that maintains a perspective on God (those that “Believe in God” and those that “Do not believe in God”) are for the most part very much adhering to a rather “masculine” perspective of this God that they do or do not believe in.

The sublime loving softness of Spirit / God / Infinity (etc) is all too often missed in the masculine view of That which we are referring to.

With love and Peace,

Jonathan

I feel your comments about God are a little imbalanced. According to Ramana Maharshi, God is as real as you and me. While we know ourselves as that vast impersonal ‘I’-less spaciousness, it is also true that the world does appear. We can easily see that all life is unreal, yet it still appears. Like an oasis, when we know its reality, it doesn’t disappear. So we can say that all manifest life is neither real nor unreal – in Vedic terms this is called ‘mithya’.

This life that appears is entirely personal. Every form has a name and is in relationship with all other forms. It is all starts with the false ‘I’ – the ‘I’ that has no legitimacy – but nevertheless its apparent creation is filled with purpose and meaning – for the experience of more and more love and joy. We can declare that the feminine is a false concept and take a staunch masculine position denying the existence of a personal God, and while this is a true position from one angle – it is also a miserable position. A personal God is the manifest side of creation – without which the masculine cannot be known.

Devotion to a personal God purifies and refines the mind and bring all kinds of blessings to all creation. A personal God, like a loving mother, is so kind and humane that adoration and worship of her is suitable for all people at all times.

To deny her is to cut yourself off from her blessings. It is like realising your own eternal reality – that you were never born and will not die – and going and telling your natural mother that you are not her son. Such a painful and unloving statement need never be spoken, despite its truth.

So we know to ourselves as the Truth and play sweetly in this world without confusing others or creating disharmony. As the Bhagavad Gita says “Those who know the whole should not confuse those who know only the part”, and the wise should not confuse the ignorant.

I have seen many teachers who do not honour the feminine. Invariably, they have no love in their life. When we love and respect the feminine, her heart will overflow with love for us and she will yield to us and say “How may I serve you?” Here the authority and dominion of the male and the love and joy and sweetness of the female are established in their highest values where they complement each other. In their perfect union they both find fulfilment.

Personally, I feel that masculine path of knowledge is an aggressive and even ruthless path. But it is very effective is cutting truth from ignorance. I recommend the path because understanding is very important. However, the consequence of this path seems to be anger, pride and emotional denial. So it needs to be taught with compassion and patience.

My attitude to all this is to enjoy the silence of Being and the silent authority that it brings. And then to take that silence and engage fully in life, honouring the feminine and creating fullness and love for all.

MAY GOD BLESS ALL BEINGS WITH PEACE AND LOVE!

Love,
Andrew.

I feel your comments about God are a little imbalanced. According to Ramana Maharshi, God is as real as you and me. While we know ourselves as that vast impersonal ‘I’-less spaciousness, it is also true that the world does appear. We can easily see that all life is unreal, yet it still appears. Like an oasis, when we know its reality, it doesn’t disappear. So we can say that all manifest life is neither real nor unreal – in Vedic terms this is called ‘mithya’.

This life that appears is entirely personal. Every form has a name and is in relationship with all other forms. It is all starts with the false ‘I’ – the ‘I’ that has no legitimacy – but nevertheless its apparent creation is filled with purpose and meaning – for the experience of more and more love and joy. We can declare that the feminine is a false concept and take a staunch masculine position denying the existence of a personal God, and while this is a true position from one angle – it is also a miserable position. A personal God is the manifest side of creation – without which the masculine cannot be known.

Devotion to a personal God purifies and refines the mind and bring all kinds of blessings to all creation. A personal God, like a loving mother, is so kind and humane that adoration and worship of her is suitable for all people at all times.

To deny her is to cut yourself off from her blessings. It is like realising your own eternal reality – that you were never born and will not die – and going and telling your natural mother that you are not her son. Such a painful and unloving statement need never be spoken, despite its truth.

So we know to ourselves as the Truth and play sweetly in this world without confusing others or creating disharmony. As the Bhagavad Gita says “Those who know the whole should not confuse those who know only the part”, and the wise should not confuse the ignorant.

I have seen many teachers who do not honour the feminine. Invariably, they have no love in their life. When we love and respect the feminine, her heart will overflow with love for us and she will yield to us and say “How may I serve you?” Here the authority and dominion of the male and the love and joy and sweetness of the female are established in their highest values where they complement each other. In their perfect union they both find fulfilment.

Personally, I feel that masculine path of knowledge is an aggressive and even ruthless path. But it is very effective is cutting truth from ignorance. I recommend the path because understanding is very important. However, the consequence of this path seems to be anger, pride and emotional denial. So it needs to be taught with compassion and patience.

My attitude to all this is to enjoy the silence of Being and the silent authority that it brings. And then to take that silence and engage fully in life, honouring the feminine and creating fullness and love for all.

MAY GOD BLESS ALL BEINGS WITH PEACE AND LOVE!

Love,
Andrew.