Thought of the day on: Inept delineation of Universe-connectedness
To connect with the Universe, we, as a mere drop of water merging into a vast ocean and yet through a magical electro-magnetic expansive enableability granted by the divine love attribute of the ocean or Universe itself, we, meaning our consciousness, remain distinct though dissolved, embracing, imbibing & assimilating the entirety of the Universe, even though the essence of our individual self is less than epsilon. Such an expansiveness or state of Universe connectedness requires that our dissolved state being as it is, just is, both within & without our individual consciousness, which though in its reality of being also is and yet in truth, is not.
I was wondering if your use of Universe is confined to the extent of the physical Universe. Is the extent of the divine superseding the physical Universe? If so, then we have what many Theosophists believe, which is similar to panentheism.
How should I respond? Let’s see...
The state of Universe connectedness in as a merging of our consciousness within it implies a no-mind state... no fragmented thought... there is no thinker, no doer, in the usual sense of the word. Just a stillness, a unity, a singularity and as soon as we attempt to define it, the essence of the expanded intuitive cognition arising from our engagement disappears.
Since, within this state, we are not, our orientation is unexpectant, yet poised & receptive.
The measure of the divine engagement as also the Universe, if there may be such a possibility, must necessarily discard analytical thought in the normal usage of the term, since analytical thought is as yet possibly limited in its range & depth. To draw an analogy, what is the boundary and texture of pure love, the love in which the self is not, in which there is no calculation, no motive, no condition, no discrimination, no trade? What is the mathematical equation defining two lovers entwined... and we are not talking merely about hormonal chemistry. This means that the unit of measure of the Universe is of a ‘science’, since we like the word ‘science’, which as yet we know not.
To go beyond or rather within, the parameters we employ to comprehend existence no longer remain the same as when we are, let us say, operating in the dualistic external world from the perceptive abilities of our default programmed narrower range. As such, the portrayal into language of the expansion of consciousness what even a pre-nascent neophyte has experienced can at best be described symbolically. It is as perplexing as explaining a three dimensional object to another whose domain is two dimensional. It is not that the person whose world is two dimensional is not intelligent... but his intelligence is contained within the limited boundaries of fragmented thought pertaining to two dimensions.
Please excuse the impropriety of the analogies employed. Let us consider this koan instead to go to the root:
The Universe is, so we are
If the Universe is not, we are not
We are, so the Universe is
If we are not, the Universe is not
To use your favourite expression John.... peace!