I want to say, that the divine entities are stable. In their relationships, it is not a matter of taking, but a matter of mutual respect and enjoyment of the possibilities of interplay. In the realms beyond ego there is no fickleness, and there are many advanced modalities of personality that are maintained in layers, above the ups and downs of daily interactions.
Judy Garland remains a passion of mine, despite the unlikelihood of her interest in me as an individual, since I have already found one of the two “wonderful ones” upon this planet. My passion is for her as an individual making her own choices, not necessarily as a lover. But whatever occurs between us is the regular thing across the galaxy, as persons such as myself find themselves isolated from similar companions, but still long for a taste of the divine personality forms and realities, that are so splendid, memorable and worthwhile. Logic dictates everything, so there is something that is done for rational reasons everywhere situations where not one, but two, stand in being “female-for-God.”
Yes, but the humans do not accept stability as a divine attribute, so it's curious that you recognize it as such. One might say only the greatest authorities could have such an insight, as you so carelessly here announce.
A person found thinking, "I should have such-and-such an attribute," where the attribute is a divine one and where the authorities-of-the-day are not expounding upon it, is most likely, according to logic, an authority masquerading as a human in order to reach down in compassion.
In particular, if the fruit of the virtue is unlike the intents of dualism, this is relatively certain.
Further, that the attributes of personality should be interesting at all, or thought to be connoting spiritual stature, is novel in today's benighted situation where samadhi-pleasures are mistaken for the ultimate position.
The authorities do not seem like much, or to be capable of much, until you try to really imitate them, where you find they were always doing the impossible for unknowable motivations.
The people who have divine characteristics today might not be able to make a demonstration in their lives, so that they could become aware of their own personal properties. This is because the ego is inherently unlikeable, and in order to exhibit a stable, rational love, one must be presented with a suitable love-object, in a likeable personality.
I think there is too much of the animal in man, for anyone to make a credible claim to universal divinity.
I think you misunderstood me, perhaps reading too quickly. I meant it is illogical for anyone to claim there is a "universal human divine," unless the word "divine" is defined so loosely that it includes the animals.
8 comments:
I want to say, that the divine entities are stable. In their relationships, it is not a matter of taking, but a matter of mutual respect and enjoyment of the possibilities of interplay. In the realms beyond ego there is no fickleness, and there are many advanced modalities of personality that are maintained in layers, above the ups and downs of daily interactions.
Judy Garland remains a passion of mine, despite the unlikelihood of her interest in me as an individual, since I have already found one of the two “wonderful ones” upon this planet. My passion is for her as an individual making her own choices, not necessarily as a lover. But whatever occurs between us is the regular thing across the galaxy, as persons such as myself find themselves isolated from similar companions, but still long for a taste of the divine personality forms and realities, that are so splendid, memorable and worthwhile. Logic dictates everything, so there is something that is done for rational reasons everywhere situations where not one, but two, stand in being “female-for-God.”
This is how I know I as a mere human cannot possibly have any divine characteristics - because I am not stable.
Yes, but the humans do not accept stability as a divine attribute, so it's curious that you recognize it as such. One might say only the greatest authorities could have such an insight, as you so carelessly here announce.
A person found thinking, "I should have such-and-such an attribute," where the attribute is a divine one and where the authorities-of-the-day are not expounding upon it, is most likely, according to logic, an authority masquerading as a human in order to reach down in compassion.
In particular, if the fruit of the virtue is unlike the intents of dualism, this is relatively certain.
Further, that the attributes of personality should be interesting at all, or thought to be connoting spiritual stature, is novel in today's benighted situation where samadhi-pleasures are mistaken for the ultimate position.
The authorities do not seem like much, or to be capable of much, until you try to really imitate them, where you find they were always doing the impossible for unknowable motivations.
Or perhaps we all have divine characterists, each of us sharing them via communication links, becoming meta-divine.
The people who have divine characteristics today might not be able to make a demonstration in their lives, so that they could become aware of their own personal properties. This is because the ego is inherently unlikeable, and in order to exhibit a stable, rational love, one must be presented with a suitable love-object, in a likeable personality.
I think there is too much of the animal in man, for anyone to make a credible claim to universal divinity.
Perhaps each individual can't, but Humanity as a whole may very well pull it off, or something approximating it.
I think you misunderstood me, perhaps reading too quickly. I meant it is illogical for anyone to claim there is a "universal human divine," unless the word "divine" is defined so loosely that it includes the animals.
Post a Comment