overcome by bliss

[wil]

Nice post thomas....

But that quality time can be accomplished without an intermediary, without pomp and circumstance, without a knowledge of the bible or any traditions...it is open for all eh, no song and dance required.

 

[radarmark]

Thomas, in your postings you state "The title refers to the simple soul united with God. Marguerite ultimately says that the soul must surrender itself, whose logic and conventions, shaped by experience of the world, cannot fully comprehend God nor plumb the depths of Divine Love. She refers to the "Annihilated Soul" as one that has given up everything to God through Love — even itself." yet said

"In your writings you evidence an experiential quality of the internal unity of the created order ... this is the 'mystical experience' so often sought by the contemporary seeker, but it's not what is spoken of in the Christian Tradition."

The only way I can reconcile these is to assume that the valid Christian mystical experience (a) must be non-experiential, (b) there can be nothing to experience the experience, or (c) your use of experientail limits it to expewrience via the senses.

Or I am not on the same page as you, do you know which it is?

Pax et amore omnia vincunt, radarmark

 

[Thomas]

Nice post thomas....

Thanks, Wil.

But that quality time can be accomplished without an intermediary, without pomp and circumstance, without a knowledge of the bible or any traditions...it is open for all eh, no song and dance required.

Is it? How could you know, having no experience of what you presuppose to be ineffectual?

In fact there is a strong tradition to the contrary.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Lunitik]

Let me correct that. Meister Eckhart is probably the greatest Christian mystic known to popular history ... and the confusion and misinterpretation of his homilies is a matter of note, and I am obliged to say that anyone who bases an argument on Eckhart alone has probably got it wrong. You really have to have a grip of his thinking in the context of the tradition before you can do that.

I have loved his writings because he mirrors so much of Eastern thought, it is a rare thing to find such words in Western thought. He still clings to Christ, but I feel this is because he not what else to call it and he does not want the authorities to crucify him for his statements. Much of what this man has said is utterly beautiful, but of course mine and your interpretations of him will not be the same.

I would say that Dionysius the pseudoAreopagite, an unknown Syrian Christian of the 6th century, is probably a greater mystic than Eckhart, certainly he was prior to him, and certainly there is nothing in Eckhart that is not in the Dionyisian Corpus.

I have heard of this man as well, but I know less of his life and have not seen much at all of his writings - just the odd quote.

Having said that, what kind of mystic was Eckhart. We have no evidence and no indication he ever 'experienced' a mystical transfiguration, although as I see it, that marks a more authentic form of Christian gnosis — the notion of 'mystical experience', the kind of which you write, and the kind of thing understood currently, is a post-enlightenment attitude more in line with secular scientific thinking than any spiritual tradition.

He says things like hearing with the divines ears, and seeing with the divines eyes. This is exactly the type of thing which I say describe my experience accurately. I was not there, yet I still witnessed what had happened.

Let me repeat, the great spiritual traditions reject all phenomena not, as you suppose, to keep people like you in your place but rather, in fact, because they know something which you, as yet, do not, that such phenomena are a side-show and a distraction ... often a glamour or the ego ... that you can't see it is understandable, you have yet to pass on from where you are. That you don't see it is the result of setting yourself up as the benchmark by which all experience is measured, the arbiter of all truth ...

This is nothing but your own projection onto my words.

What I have said is that material and spiritual are not two, but you will not hear me saying that anything transient should be clung to. No, this goes against everything of religion, for you are to re-bind with the permanent.

So in short I would say, you are on the road ... but you are not there yet.

Such a strange statement from someone who in another thread has said they have reached. This is ego-food, it is very dangerous indeed.

In passing, let me mention Marguerite Porete, a little-known French woman who was burnt at the stake for heresy in 1310. She was the author of what is now recognised as a spiritual classic, The Mirror of Simple Souls.

Would you happen to know where this is available online, preferably for free as an e-book?

Unlike Meister Eckhart, it is unlikely that Porete will be rehabilitated, being too obscure and lacking sufficient support for her case. The Mirror was published privately and anonymously after her death, it's author remaining unidentified until 1946.

And yet she lives on in this discussion, and I doubt she cares much what has come of her name - it is perfectly good that she be left in peace

The title refers to the simple soul united with God. Marguerite ultimately says that the soul must surrender itself, whose logic and conventions, shaped by experience of the world, cannot fully comprehend God nor plumb the depths of Divine Love. She refers to the "Annihilated Soul" as one that has given up everything to God through Love — even itself.

Yes, yes!

Surrender is necessary, but to be understood is that God as it stands is also a conception of mind currently. That too must be dropped through recognition that it is opposite of self, then utter annihilation.

In the Mahamudra thread, this is exactly the great orgasm.

The reality of this surrender of even one's own soul to God underpins the Beatitudes ... a state of divine grace, but a state which transcends, or rather by-passes, the experiential altogether. It has been variously called Divine Ignorance (Nicholas of Cusa), or Unknowing, and famously, The Ürgrund of Eckhart, or the Dark Night of the Soul of St John or the Cross.

You are speaking from mind, stop it.

Transcendence is perfectly good, it is the escape from the confines of mind, the creator of duality. The very process of language dictates that we categorize everything, then faiths go on teaching is even wider groupings - do good and heaven, do bad and hell - and everything is sorted like this.

Transcendence in this context simply means to drop these notions. It is certainly an ignorance, a complete innocence towards everything. No more are you programmed, no more to you project concepts onto reality.

"Beloved, let us love one another, for love cometh of God. And every one that loveth, is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love. .. [and] he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him." (First Epistle of John 3: 7-16).

I quote this often, for it is exactly the catalyst of my own transcendence - Buddha created the space and Christ opened the door for the divine to enter. No matter how much negative I speak of Christ because of the way the Christians paint him, I love him deeply for that day.

Poete is entirely orthodox in her expression of man being united with God through love, of returning to one's very source of being, the unity of the Knower and the known. In this she connects with the ideas of Eriugena, whose writings, also banned and also circulated privately, had an influence on Eckhart. Porete and Eckhart had acquaintances in common, but we can only speculate as to whether they had access to, or discussed each other's ideas.

Such topics cannot be ideas, they cannot be communicated with words. Whatsoever is said or written can only be a beautiful pointer. It is interesting you say this is entirely Orthodox though considering so many Christians seem against the very notion...

I simply take away the word "God", and replace with ultimate or absolute or source - words like this - because God has a definite concept for Christians. They believe they know what God is, but you cannot know with the mind - it simply isn't possible.

No, I'm afraid that's your assumption. In your writings you evidence an experiential quality of the internal unity of the created order ... this is the 'mystical experience' so often sought by the contemporary seeker, but it's not what is spoken of in the Christian Tradition.

You speak of myself trying to be an arbiter of truth, yet this is the sort of statement which comes from you...

I am fully aware that what I have experienced is not a finality, there is further growth possible. How do I know this? It is simply that I desire a more permanent encounter, I wish it to be my reality.

There are stages in Buddhist thinking, the lowest - what I encountered - is called Kensho. Next is Satori, this is more prolonged - maybe months or so. Final loss of self, likely what the Christians aim towards is called Samadhi.

They do not convey the content of the experience, but they do tell of it sufficiently for me to respond as I do.

This is how I have drawn conclusions of your words as well, yet you have perhaps shown that we might at least be talking from the same plane - just of different understandings because you are more focused on Christ alone, whereas I am accepting of all that seem to know. You are still subservient, I have simply accepted my part in his body - as the Bible explains it. There cannot be rank, Jesus himself says that once the apostles reached, they are as his brother. As brothers, they must also be son's of God - this is said best as the Holy Spirit transcending on them, for this is to be born again, it is a new being that has blossomed.

This is dangerous only if ego identifies with it, if it is of ego it is not a deep understanding - cannot be, for ego is the circumference. No circumference knowledge is useful, you must go to the center. Jesus is as a bridge, there are many bridges but the center is one.

Then you would be an inert entity, which patently you are not.

This is certainly the experience, you are dumbstruck. You have exploded and you are no more the body, you are a pure energy vibrating. It is as an orgasm, but deeply in every cell of the body. What can you do? You simply watch, allow, as soon as you assert you are again.

 

[Lunitik]

I make this single distinction for Christians: Jesus is the man, the name given to him at birth. Christ is the transcendence, the name of the being born of the Holy Spirit.

Christ is the son of God, Jesus is the son of Mary - in this context I can completely accept that Christ is the only begotten son, for no other exists, it is the whole. The son and the father are one, Jesus says this in many roundabout ways. This means creator and created must also be one, all that can be is creativity. This is the meaning of begotten, it means "created as offspring", the son of God is phenomenal existence, its father is the permanence... God is the whole, creativity.

creator - created - creativity
beloved - lover - love

Always the threes - object, subject, transcendence; negative, positive, truth; nonexistential, existential, existence. The ying, the yang, and the whole.

Father, son, holy spirit.
It is no coincidence that we live in a 3 dimensional world, the very building blocks are a hint... the pyramids show this is an ancient understanding. The three can become one...

 

[Lunitik]

Christian dogma says you can become a co-creator with God... this is flawed, it is fundamentally dualistic. It is that you currently identify too much with being a creation, but this is false. Your consciousness is as a drop of the ocean which is God, your own concepts create a boundary. You can realize this and engage in creation directly, Christ has done this through his miracles - they are useful for no other reason than to show it, that creation can create because they are not different.

You have to drop these dualistic conceptions, discover what witnessed all that mind has labelled. This is not useful in and of itself, but at least it can be a hint - it can break you from your hypnosis. To disagree merely shows you are not yet arrived, you are still in the way.

 

[radarmark]

See, here is the thing, Lunitik, you are painting a huge number of people unfairly with your too-brod generalizations. There are many Christian groups that do not accept your definition of Jesus versus Christ or your co-creator metaphor.

It is never (for me at least) what you say positively (in a theological sense), like pointing out all of this is a unity. But what you say negatively--what G!d is not that is almost ununderstndable (again, to me). I would suggest you either drop the "all" statements or implications (read some Korzybski) or "fine-tune" your statements. Switch form pouring five gallon can of paint to using a 10/0 sable brush.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt. Radarmark

 

[Thomas]

Christian dogma says you can become a co-creator with God... this is flawed, it is fundamentally dualistic.

Who's Christian doctrine? Some modern denominations, maybe, but then anything goes, these days ... but not the traditional ones.

You have to drop these dualistic conceptions,

Lunitik — you have to drop your dualist misunderstandings ... anyone who says Christianity is dualistic just advertises they don't understand it.

Christianity is essentially holistic.

Luitik —
If you indeed are as ego-less as you have said, I would have thought you would be more interested in asking us what we believe, rather than persist in making erroneous judgements about what it is you assume we believe, which says nothing but that you don't really understand us at all, and are too full of your own self-importance to listen to what we're saying.

I'll leave you with the words of Christ to St Katherine of Sienna:
"I am He Who Is, you are she who is not."
If you came half-way close to understanding that, you'd realise what a lot of propaganda and nonsense you've been spouting about Christianity up to this point.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Radarmark —

... The only way I can reconcile these is to assume that the valid Christian mystical experience
(a) must be non-experiential,
(b) there can be nothing to experience the experience, or
(c) your use of experiential limits it to experience via the senses.
Or I am not on the same page as you, do you know which it is?

I have delayed, because I wanted to get back to you on this, and I was looking for a reference which so far eludes me, I'll cite from memory, for the moment...

The source I was looking for was the Superior of a Bendictine Convent, a woman of some intellectual capacity, a spiritual director, a clinical psychologist and some other stuff I can't remember. She has put forward the thesis that the 'experience' of the mystic — voices, visions — are not intrinsically part of the 'message', but a by-product, and sometimes an unfortunate one, of its reception.

There have been, for example, a number of mystics who critics say suffered visions that were triggered by an illness, epilepsy, for example. The Rev. Mothers' thesis is that epilepsy, etc, is not the cause od a fantasmagorical vision, but that the epileptic fit was a side-effect ... Ezekiel in the Old Testament gives an account of certain physical manifestations that a psychologist would be most interested in today.

Another line is the work of Denys Turner in "The Darkness of God" on Christian apophatic theology generally. The basic point is, if God is beyond forms, etc., then what and how can God be 'experienced'? To understand this, one really has to get to grips with the ideas of 'ight' and 'darkness' in the Christian Tradition.

Robert Forman studied a wide range of literature on the subject, and speaks of a "pure consciousness event"
'... a wakeful but contentless (non-intentional) experience. Though one remains awake and alert, emerging with a clear sense of having had 'an unbroken continuity of experience', one neither thinks, nor perceives, nor acts"

A third stream is Ian MacGilchrist on neuroscience, and the left-right hand relationship of the brain ...

All in all I am inclined to the idea that true Christian gnosis is not knowledge, there is no objective content, rather it is a knowing, and moreover, a knowing of being known, something signalled quite emphatically by St Paul and St John in the New Testament.

Similarly in Plato I think one can deduce that the 'esoteric' is treated in the same way, and esoteric is not at all what so many regard it as today, an order of knowledge of secret or undisclosed things ... again that's the consumer version. Someone said knowlege is knowledge, and esoteric knowledge is knowledge with an ego ... I think classic esoteric cannot be explained, written down, whatever ... it is an initiation.

Allied to this is my own studies of Hermeticism and symbolism generally, in which I believe, for example, that heraldry, and heraldioc beasts, is founded on a particular psychodynamic response and reaction to psychic projection and reception ...

The key to the whole thing lies not in the content of the mystical experience, but in the knowing.

It rests on faith. faith is not a defect of understanding or knowledge, faith is a knowledge, or rather a knowing, that transcends forms.

So:
(a) must be non-experiential,
Not must, but the 'experience' might well be a side-effect of the physical trying to decipher the event.

(b) there can be nothing to experience the experience, or
there is nothing 'in' the experience to be experienced

(c) your use of experiential limits it to experience via the senses.
Yes, as that is how it is commonly understood today.

Anyway ... that's elements of it ... if anything tickles a fancy, let me know.

If love is of God, then anyone who has ever been, or is in love, is having a 'mystical experience' — it's just in our post-enlightenment, self-oriented, consumer society, 'the 'mystical' now has a certain glamorous cachet ... hence the attraction of such terms like 'mystic', 'gnostic' and so on ... I don't seem people tumbling over themselves to become 'simple saints'.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[wil]

Thanks, Wil.


Is it? How could you know, having no experience of what you presuppose to be ineffectual?

In fact there is a strong tradition to the contrary.

God bless,

Thomas

Did I say it was ineffectual?

I simply said it was not required.

As in the US space program story...one can invent a pen for a million dollars that writes upside down, or one can do like the russians....and use a pencil.

Another analogy is the healing in the bible...the disciples had issues, because they don't have faith, others believe Jesus needs to be there...but Jesus doesn't heal everyone in the pools, he walks upto the one who was sick and tired of being sick and tired and tells him to pick up his cot and go....and tells him it is because of his faith...the centurian...didn't need Jesus to goto the house to he'll his servant...just say the word...because the centurian had faith that would work....the woman who lacked faith...thought...if I only touched his garment that would be enough....

tis our faith...if we put faith in the song and dance...then it is the song and dance...

or faith in touching the garment...not asking him to do anything...others needed to ask, others needed to be touched...others needed to be prayed over...

choices...what we put our faith in to.

didn't say it was ineffectual....and am wrong to say it is not required....

it is not required by all....

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

As in the US space program story...one can invent a pen for a million dollars that writes upside down, or one can do like the russians....and use a pencil.

That story is an ubran myth, no truth in it at all, but it does appeal to a lot of people.

it is not required by all....

Ditto.

And again ... how would you know?

God bless,

Thomas

 

[wil]

Hi Wil —


That story is an ubran myth, no truth in it at all, but it does appeal to a lot of people.

I'm aware of its stature, thank you.

Just because it is a myth does not mean the story does not have value....

but we've gone over that many times before....

Ditto.

And again ... how would you know?

God bless,

Thomas

How would I know what? Not being flippant, just insuring we are talking about the same thing.

 

[IowaGuy]

It rests on faith. faith is not a defect of understanding or knowledge, faith is a knowledge, or rather a knowing, that transcends forms.

Thomas, thanks for the thoughtful posts on this topic. Good food for thought.

Do you think this faith which you describe differs between theistic and non-theistic religions/beliefs? Is there a difference between the "faith" in rebirth of a Buddhist that doesn't believe in deities, and the "faith" in the existence/power of the Divine that a Christian has? i.e. is there a "divine influence" element to this faith you describe, which would therefore make it unattainable to a non-theist?

Is this faith a result of being born into a particular religious path or can it be attained through reason and logic?

From reading your posts it seems that you think following the knowledge/beliefs of Tradition is a better path than someone trying to forge their own belief system. It seems to me that, when viewing a religion from the outside (without being born into it), and choosing between the plethora of world religions & belief systems, a person must use some sort of reason and logic in order to make the choice that is best for them. But then how can they ever achieve this "faith" which you speak of? How can one use "reason" to choose to have "faith" (which is outside the realm of reason as it cannot be falsified).

Do you think it's possible for someone born outside a theistic tradition, to ever develop this level of faith which transcends forms?

 

[luecy7]

So:
(a) must be non-experiential,
Not must, but the 'experience' might well be a side-effect of the physical trying to decipher the event.

(b) there can be nothing to experience the experience, or
there is nothing 'in' the experience to be experienced

(c) your use of experiential limits it to experience via the senses.
Yes, as that is how it is commonly understood today.

Perhaps it is a play in words, but the term 'experience' could merely mean 'witnessing', or 'sensing', or it could mean 'do-ing' or 'interacting'. For example, witnessing or receiving someone's giving or forgiveness is one thing. Giving or forgiving is another. If a person gives or forgives then they do gain experience and gain a different perspective.

It seems to me the Catholic church believes it is important to experience confession. Witnessing a confession and confessing are two different activities. I'd place the term 'experience' more with the latter: do-ing, than with the former: seeing someone else do it.

With that I don't think anyone can take away from those that say meditation is the path to some important, cosmic, mystical experience. The action of meditating is an action, and a person does gain a form of experience with it.

That said, a rapist, a murderer, or a thief gains a form of experience, and a perspective, or experience, along with it.

So I don't see wisdom in shooting down one's experience for merely being an experience or the pursuit of an experience; rather, to identify the nature of the experience as to whether it is inline with the golden rule, whether it bears good fruit or bad, etc... Alternatively, whether it is anyone's end-all of experience as they might claim.

 

[radarmark]

As the writer of the text Thomas elaborated on let me comment.

First, by "non-experiential" I meant "beyond" what in normally called experiential (not in a Whitheadean sense of "actual entity"). I will make that "should" instead of "must" because Thomas is right. Many mystics (off all religions) have an experiantial reaction to the "actual entity" (event).

Second, the actual event is "beyond" experience, so either "there can be nothing to experience the experience" or "there is nothing (no-thing) 'in' the experience to be experienced" works

Third, in the Whiteheadean sense (not limiting "experience" to the senses, but including reflextion or "some kind of comptemplation") "experience" can be used in lieu of "actual entity" or "event". The correction is correct, this is a rather dated sense of the term (catch the pun?).

Pax ae amore omnia vincunt

 

[luecy7]

First, by "non-experiential" I meant "beyond" what in normally called experiential (not in a Whitheadean sense of "actual entity"). I will make that "should" instead of "must" because Thomas is right. Many mystics (off all religions) have an experiantial reaction to the "actual entity" (event).

Second, the actual event is "beyond" experience, so either "there can be nothing to experience the experience" or "there is nothing (no-thing) 'in' the experience to be experienced" works

Third, in the Whiteheadean sense (not limiting "experience" to the senses, but including reflextion or "some kind of comptemplation") "experience" can be used in lieu of "actual entity" or "event". The correction is correct, this is a rather dated sense of the term (catch the pun?).

Pax ae amore omnia vincunt

Well I confess this all looks somewhat like Latin to me, and I don't 'know' Latin, but I have some experience with some of the subjects.

So from a different angle, with your...
First: What if experience meant something purposely caused, so that your "non-experiential" meant "beyond" what a person would normally cause. Many mystics (off all religions) might naturally develop the experience to cause or make an "actual entity" (event).

Second: What if an actual event is "beyond being caused", so either "there can be nothing to have caused the event" or "there is nothing (no-thing) 'in' the event to cause it"

Third: What of not limiting "causing" to the muscles, but including some soles, or "some kind of do-er") "experience" can be used in lieu of "actually doing" or "event". (Does that include the pun?)

 

[radarmark]

That works, too. Thanks for the resonance.

 

[Thomas]

How would I know what? Not being flippant, just insuring we are talking about the same thing.

The Liturgy and, by extension I suppose, the Eucharist.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Lunitik]

anyone who says Christianity is dualistic just advertises they don't understand it.

Christianity is essentially holistic.

Then I must confess I don't understand it, because everything I see you saying is dualistic, everything I've ever heard in a Catholic or Christian Church is utterly dualistic, and yet I'm supposed to know it is holistic?

Every time you split things, every time you differentiate, you are creating duality. I don't understand how this can equate to a oneness, even in the trinity most every Christian will say that God is too high for humans to ever approach during life, this is dualistic.

Past and future is the most pronounced duality that people succumb to, you are saying that somewhere in the future it can happen, but it happens always now, it is always now - past and future only exist in the mind, they are not real, cannot be. Just surrender into now, and all spiritual experiences are open to you. If you go on considering things in the future, always working to some goal or remembering your past, reminiscing about something you enjoyed... this all causes us to miss the now and so it cannot happen.

Let us note that the literal meaning of sin is "to miss the mark", I posit that the mark is this very moment. If you allow it, the self will melt away this second, otherwise you are sinning.

If you indeed are as ego-less as you have said, I would have thought you would be more interested in asking us what we believe, rather than persist in making erroneous judgements about what it is you assume we believe, which says nothing but that you don't really understand us at all, and are too full of your own self-importance to listen to what we're saying.

Having no ego doesn't mean you are humble, in fact humility is a type of egoism, you are trying to be the most humble you can be because you think it is saintly. You look at Christian monasteries or priests and the like, they are solemn - they live a depressed life. This isn't religiousness for me, this is an obsession with death. I cannot even call most priests I have met living, because they are more like zombies - they have drained everything of life out of them, they are just waiting to die now.

I speak authentically and naturally, when I see something I can advance, I will respond. This will come across as authoritative because I know what I say to be true, there is no leniency at all in truth. I am not here to learn, I am hear to participate.

I'll leave you with the words of Christ to St Katherine of Sienna:
"I am He Who Is, you are she who is not."
If you came half-way close to understanding that, you'd realise what a lot of propaganda and nonsense you've been spouting about Christianity up to this point.

I understand it fine, and yet I speak on Christianity as a whole because too many of the people that practice this faith have no idea of its transformative aspects, and you yourself are insistent that Christianity goes beyond any other tradition - something I fundamentally have a problem with. My whole motivation is to cause people to drop these absurd borders...

Every faith teaches the same exact thing, ultimately. It can be no other way, because consciousness is the same for all humans, it is just a clinging to a particular master which differentiates faith. Some insist their master is the incarnation of God, this creates too much difference between the master and the devotees. All of this needs to be dropped. It is nothing against Christian teachings, it is the very distinction "Christianity" which I have a problem with - likewise any other religion. It is time to synthesize everything and start teaching all of society to access their highest peaks of consciousness - the world is minuscule, there is no excuse for remaining segregated out of stubbornness.

I will never support any separatist movement because my fundamental attitude is that all is one... the religions of the world are exactly that though, and for me it is disgusting - we are still killing each other over who's religious leader is most correct... they have all experienced the same happening.

 

[Lunitik]

See, here is the thing, Lunitik, you are painting a huge number of people unfairly with your too-brod generalizations. There are many Christian groups that do not accept your definition of Jesus versus Christ or your co-creator metaphor.

No Christian accepts the distinction between Jesus and Christ, but for me this is the only way to reconcile him as the son of God. Christ, I can certainly say is the son of God because now Jesus has died - for me, this happened during the 40 days of spiritual retreat. He became an enlightened man during those 40 days for me, Christians will not say he is enlightened though, only humans have to become enlightened, not the son of God.

As for co-creation, well, many faiths talk about manifesting. It is a phenomenon I have personally encountered. For instance, if I ask enough for something, if I ask purely enough it simply happens. Much can be written off as coincidence, but when it is repeatable I do not say it is coincidence at all. As an example, I have asked daily for someone to contact me, and despite parting on very negative terms, it has come to be that they have done as I wished. Another example is leaving the house requesting that I see a particular person from my past, and I will encounter them reliably while I wander around. This is co-creation, and it is the purpose of prayer... you can control the world around you, but you have to put the thought out first.

It is never (for me at least) what you say positively (in a theological sense), like pointing out all of this is a unity. But what you say negatively--what G!d is not that is almost ununderstndable (again, to me). I would suggest you either drop the "all" statements or implications (read some Korzybski) or "fine-tune" your statements. Switch form pouring five gallon can of paint to using a 10/0 sable brush.

A lot of what I say is to shock people out of organized religion, I am very against organized religion because it creates barriers between peoples. For me, the world would be a much better place if we recognized that all the religious founders have experienced the same thing. If we can have Krishna and Buddha, Muhammad and Jesus, all the founders on an even pedestal for all people, we could learn from each faith equally and our spiritual experiences would be more complete. Currently, we have different people emulating different experiences of another human being, these people are the only true individuals history has developed for the simple reason that everyone else simply emulates them. I despise this, for me, it is the epitome of stupidity and arrogance - "the religion I was accidently born into is clearly superior than anything else" or "obviously my conclusions are better than yours if you disagree".

You will say I am making conclusions as well, it is simply not the case. I have simply found my center and speak from there, there is no conclusion of mind involved - actually mind fights with much that I say, because it wants to remain alive and my words will kill it. I can sympathize with those that take issue with my words because my own mind doesn't want it to be the case, my mind remembers when it has been silenced though, it remembers that bliss so it is quicker to accept than a mind that doesn't recall such things.