Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tl00005)

Addressing some of Kym's comments on karma on 16 Dec 1998. This is a bit
belated because I've been away and have only just caught up with the e-mail.

Hi, Kym and all.

>>Supposing that Karma was one of the agents of "God ?"
>
>I guess I am stuck on WHY "God" needs "agents."  If "God" is omnipotent,
>the need for "agents" seems unnecessary.  I have often heard people in
>prayer ask for "God" to 'use' them to further "God's" work - why can't
>"God" do this for his/her/it's self?  I mean, what if every entity simply
>REFUSED to do "God's" work - what would "God" do then?

Ah, a morass of human constructs - "God", "agents", "omnipotence" and the
rest of it! I'm not being personal - it's the litter of history. Let's see
if there are some other human takes on it all. :)

People often seem to have taken omnipotence to mean that a being called God
can wield unlimited power to satisfy an intention, even a whim, in the way
a limited human personality would. I don't think that the dimension of
reality we could call God is like that. It's so anthropomorphic, it sucks.
The same with a lot of the concepts of God we've been bequeathed. However,
once that bit of surgery has been done, we can stay with the G word as long
as we let it have a much deeper, more open meaning.

I think that omnipotence rather means that *all the energy there is* is an
expression, and an orderly expression, of the one fountain of being. This
Source, beyond immensity, sustains the web of consciousness and energy that
is our universe of beings and stuff, in all its myriads of grades of
density, rates of vibration, scopes of localised consciousness and so on.

One of the things I learnt from Geoffrey Hodson (but not him alone) was
that wherever there is a perceivable law or principle in nature, there is
an associated consciousness and intelligence embedded in it. Not at a
distance, pulling strings from some sky-high platform, but intrinsically
associated with it, so that the very principle itself is the body, as it
were, of a particular shard of the universal intelligence, functioning at
more inward levels of being.

The principle that we, as humans, observe *very* partially and like (or
don't like!) to call Karma, is an example. Another concrete example would
be the "law" of gravity. (I'm not fond of that word "law", by the way.
Another human construct. Science has learnt not to toss that word around as
nonchalantly as it used to. It is also now known to coexist in an intimate
relationship with Chaos, so "law" is a rather qualified term.)

Anyway, what this means is that an appropriate intelligence is virtually
living in the operation of gravity. Not imposing itself on nature from
outside, but as a living heart to that aspect of nature. Extend this
throughout nature, and it will give a glimpse of why Nature can affect us
with its beauty and be so soul-restoring. Provided humans haven't stuffed
it up and overlaid the essential atmosphere with their own gunk.

Of course, when you think of being incarnated in the law of gravity for 20
billion years, it sounds like an unbelievably boring existence - "I
sentence you to 20 billion years in the law of gravity" :-}  - but
according to those who have touched the fringes of such a consciousness, it
retains its sense of connectedness with the rest of the living universe and
participates in the whole network of being with the Joy that humans seem to
specialise in forgetting.

The beings or consciousnesses I'm talking about are part of or related to
what is called the Deva or angelic kingdom, but right away, by calling in
those words, we've invoked more clusters of human cultural trappings.
Scalpel, please .... :-)

>I am sure that every human has a different conception of the nature of
>"God."  So there can both be many "Gods" and still just one "God."  Or, if
>"God" is simply the manifestation of humans, then there are many "Gods" and
>not only one "God."

Aye, you've said it. I think a good approach is to think "Is this concept
of God likely or realistic?" and put it aside if not. But note that this
kind of open, creative (ie not destructive) doubt does not *at all* mean
you need to give up on the idea that there is a supreme something that is
not only the source of all, but links everything in an all-embracing web of
relationship.

It's interesting that the whole of science is founded on the *belief* that
what's true in one corner of the universe is true in others. Observation
sofar bears that out, with some graded fields of variation that have become
apparent in cosmology, but notice how this kind of faith combines quite
naturally with open-mindedness. A far cry from the faith plus
closed-mindedness that much of western religion forced on its followers
down the centuries. What we have to do as humans is be forever willing to
let go of a concept we've held, even if lovingly for 7 decades, in favour
of a better one when it knocks on our door. Who wants their tiny mind to
remain just as tiny till the day they die?? I already know that you don't :-)

>Well, again, if "God" is omnipotent and omniscient, then "God" can
>certainly do the adjusting in the proper way.  And, this being so, I fail
>to see why "God" needs a tool such as karma to do it.

By now, I hope I've pointed out a way of seeing all this so that the
separateness implicit in the idea of a tool, or of needing a tool, has
basically dissolved away.

But, having said that, the innate expressiveness of the Oneness, can be
mediated and assisted by beings which have reached self consciousness and
self-determined action. As humans, we have the choice to help along the
evolutionary process around us; to help or hinder, build or destroy. To be
of service or require service. So there is, in a way, a neediness. Maybe
it's better thought of as an opportunity for the real joy of participating
in the universal creative process. And that's about the highest definition
of fulfilment - and fun - you can get.

Love

Murray

----------------------------------------------------------------------