I was referring to a God which has awareness and which thinks such as the traditional gods of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and most others. God is popularly conceived of as existing previous to His creation. If creation was indeed a process of thought or mind then it required an action. Actions cannot occur outside of time because time is an essential characteristtic of all movement.
You talked about God-Consciousness. I presume you are not talking about God or you would have said "God". Consciousness of God (if that is what you mean by "God-Consciousness") can only exist in time. Consciousness refers to awareness of some things in existence. Awareness requires some basic level of cognition. Any act of thought or perception requires time.
If God existed outside of time then He was not alive, did not think, and did not create.
"Your reasoning is based on egoic existence, Solon, as if nothing else exists"
The only way I cannot reason from the reference of self is if I die or if I develop some incredible form of mental illness. In either case, the term "reason" would become inappropriate. I cannot "reason" from a non-egoic perspective any more than you can.
The fact that healthy people have an awareness of separate self does not mean that nothing else exists. It is obvious, however, that before little children develop a healthy sense of self or ego, their ability to reason remains at a basic and unremarkable level.
Anybody can imagine any kind of cosmos or God or supernatural universe that they like. I can imagine an Eternal Parsnip which created the world because the double p in parsnip in part of the energy which fuels creation and the point of the parsnip relates and refers to the point from which the universe sprang and to which it will shrink when the double P of the parsnip is comprehended as the One Main Source of all Love, Light, and Humming.
Unfortunately, James, imagining is not reasoning...and fancies are not "reasons". Just because any bright person can invent a cosmology and even give it a new language and make its parts more or less cohesive--this does not give it any truth value. It might give the person a large following (such as we have seen in countless religious movements, many of which have died out), but its appeal to such people is precisely that it is NOT based on any evidence or reason, but is based SOLELY on imagination, and on claims which may not be refuted because they exist "outside of egoic existence" as it were. You are welcome to cherish your views "outside of egoic existence". They seem harmless enough. But it is not something we can reason about, is it?
If we blindly accept some imagined a priorae about the existence of God and God-Consciousness, and Mind, etc., then we can test the logical coherence with which the Guru or Priest or Founder contrives to sew these first pemises together. But his or her imaginary first premises have no more evidentiary importance than the imaginations of any child perched in a tree and watching the clouds roll across the sky.
If I had the time I could go through your Guru's books and separate all the premises which have no evidence but which are assumptions based on imagination. But you could do that yourself. Just take any sentence and ask yourself: "On what basis am I to accept this assumption as true?" You might find that the universe sprang from a Parsnip. ;-) |
