All Just Is, E.C.Nemeth [important books to read .TXT] 📗

to be built upon it, the statement ‘All just is’ is also the foundation of faith. It declares that God existed before the universe, before time itself had meaning.
Before the universe existed, from your perspective, I was unmanifest. I was All. I just was.
At some point I decided to create the universe.
The decision to create your world caused an effect to be made manifest in my totality. A sudden convergence of my essence created a need for a divergence of my essence, and vice versa. It is the dual aspects of convergence/divergence that is the very first koanic knot, its koan being All – the kernel of reality from which today’s reality sprung.
Using language and symbols barely adequate to coherently paint a picture of the true workings of the universe itself, virtually fails to illuminate, to describe, a place outside of the known universe. Suffice it to say that I had an idea and the idea ‘took on a life of its own’.
The moment I had the idea a portion of my being polarized and became differentiated. I was still All but some of me had become concentrated/diffused. These tiny portions of me are what the author has termed monopole and nopole. They are the precursors to your universe.
The monopole, then, is my idea while the nopole is the vessel of its fulfillment.
Often times the universal container, the vessel, is ignored in favor of the contained. That is a fatal mistake, literally. Every minute portion of the contained contains an equal portion of the container. So by ignoring the container you take a great deal for granted. For that matter, the contained is a direct consequence of the properties of the container. What this means, in as plain a language as possible, is that your understanding of the things in the universe is only as accurate as your understanding of the fabric of the universe itself. That is the work of this book: to understand the universal container.
In order to do that the author has extrapolated the dual aspects of the universe back to a time before the universe existed. He claims that I had to exhibit the qualities I wished to bestow on the future universe. The dual aspects of monopole/nopole are his words, created to at least capture a vague image of something unmanifest and beyond the ken of man.
MUNDANE ANALYSIS
Understanding the Divine
This work builds upon the premise that God exists for the reasons touched on in the introduction and others that will be explored throughout this book. The idea that a choice must be made between whether the universe exists or God exists is the most convincing of all the possible arguments. The choosing of God over the universe is equivalent to choosing life over death, literally as well as figuratively. This book attempts to explain the truth and the ramifications of that statement. The assumption of this work from the outset, moreover, is that it succeeds in that attempt. Otherwise this theory would make no sense.
That God exists is also the primary statement being made between the lines throughout the tale, The Circle and the Dot. The main character of the story is himself an aspect of God.
The biggest problem with accepting the existence of God is that then the laws of nature need not be consistent. If the laws of nature can be vetoed by some supernatural power, the argument continues, then there are no grounds for assuming the existence of a set of initial conditions that lead to today’s universe. In other words, science is afraid that if there is a God then there might not be a perfect correlation between cause and effect. And without causality science’s understandings would be unsubstantiated. Science’s formidable range of technologies, the argument concludes, is proof of science’s premise. And make no mistake, science’s premise is that God does not exist.
Intelligent design does not necessarily imply that there are no natural laws influencing the evolution of the cosmos. On the contrary, it almost guarantees that there are because the universe is not only a concept, a thing, but a context, a place where things can exist. In order for existence to be able to manifest there must be laws that govern its existence. It could be argued that God is manipulating the entire universe without the need of laws. It is the contention of this book that, ultimately, that is exactly what is happening because there is only God, and nothing else – but we’re getting ahead of ourselves.
God is not a supernatural being, separate and distinct from the rest of creation. God is totally natural. That is, God is the sum total of all of nature. In the simplest possible words: God is the universe. Notice how God is the universe in a way that the universe cannot be God. That is why to choose God over the universe is logical. It does create a great deal of confusion, however, because our understanding of reality is based upon the scientific model and it refutes the idea of God.
Our intellectual mind-set is biased because our senses report that the world out there is real and relavent while at the same time questioning the reality or at least the relavancy of the inner world of feelings. The preponderance of evidence (i.e. the solidity and predictability of the universe is legitamate and sufficient reason to conclude the undeniable existence of the outside world) science would contend, points to disregarding the inner world of turmoil and unpredictability and focussing exclusively on the outer world of order and logic.
In the story, Dot comes to this same conclusion when he decides that the preponderance of his external senses points to the fact that exploring the outside world is what he was designed to do.
The reasoning, the logical hierarchy, behind choosing God as existing over the universe is, as was stated above, that God can include the universe, some might say in a twisted way perhaps, but the universe cannot accept God. In other words, deciding that God exists does not necessarily rule out the existence of the universe, as is the case in reverse.
But before the word God can have relevance it must be defined. And before the term God can be explained it must be stripped of all human connotations because there are so many contradicting claims for the characteristics of God. Although we all have our opinions in this regard, and they do conflict in certain areas, there are some traits that most of us can agree on. It is the contention of this theory that the majority of the world’s people believe that God is infinite, omnipotent and omniscient. If any one of these three things are true descriptions of God then a radical statement can be made:
God is all there is and all there is not.
All just is
For the purpose of this discussion it is prudent to define All as the ultimate expression of God so that All just is.
Instead of the word All we could substitute any one of dozens of names including Allah, Brahman, Supreme Being, The Source, or Yahweh, to illustrate just a few, but these words already have meanings attached to them. Although the definition of any of those, and other such words, is remarkably similar they each have a particular personal flavor that taints their meanings in a subjective way and that’s not congruent with the task of this work. What is required for comprehension in this instance is a word that has no initial charge on it. One that doesn’t immediately set the mind in motion, conjuring up the known and inferred parameters that describe it. In other words, we need a word that has no preset limits already imposed upon it. Since every existing word does the invention of a word was necessary so that it wouldn’t. Even though what is being attempted by this device is illogical, since the naming of a thing immediately places limits upon it, it still manages to preserve a vestige of the initial objective and that may be enough.
Whereas God is all there is and all there is not, All just is.
Of course God, or Buddha, or any of the others, just is as well. What the statement ‘All just is’ underlines is that the whole is beyond the scope of the parts to comprehend, let alone to try and define it. No judgement is made. It is simply acknowledged that this is so. Far from being a metaphoric shrug of the shoulders as if the topic is too esoteric and not tangible enough to grasp intellectually, those three words provide the perfect foundation upon which to build a far more realistic, resilient and reliable understanding of the true nature of our universe.
It is the meaning behind our understanding of things that is the gauge of our true comprehension.
It is evident that we do not, in reality, understand the meaning behind the facts because science has no way to construct an experiment that could uncover the meaning to the way things are. And it is science that the contemporary world turns to for such answers. Science can offer clues in this regard but no formula can be created to describe it. What this implies is that science is forced to conclude that many conditions and universal parameters exist and they all just are the way they are. That is, no speculation is expended on asking why or how those parameters came into being – they just are. They are considered a given with an assumed arbitrary setting – which is just a nice way of saying that there is no God needed in the equation.
Be that as it may, the statement All just is supercedes the plethora of initial conditions and universal parameters. All claims sole ownership to the attribute of just plain being, with no explanation required. But if that is so then there must be an explanation for the existence of everything else.
That is the job of science.
The case for the missing link
But the modern worldview of science is based on a mode of interpreting the universe that is prone to misinterpretations. That is because the logic it employs to make sense of the information it acquires is limited. This would imply that a flaw in the worldview most likely occurred early on, during the inception of science.
Although science has been around for thousands of years in one form or another its modern, western beginnings can arguably be traced back to about four hundred years ago. At that time the churches of the day were all-powerful. It was blasphemy to contradict the teachings of the church, punishable by imprisonment, torture and even death. Science was thwarted and harangued from the outset but it quietly went about exploring the world, slowly piecing together the universal puzzle. Over the centuries to follow there was a tacit agreement that developed between science and religion. It was understood that each should limit their studies to their respective disciplines and keep the two separate and distinct.
In this way, God was cut off from science. The rift was not seen as any kind of problem for the world was full of so many wondrous objects, other than an illusive God, to explore. In modern scientific terms God has become unnecessary when explaining the way the universe came into being.
Could it be that it is God who is missing from the modern worldview?
The foundation of the model of the universe, its basic truth, must stand on solid ground otherwise the body of knowledge that it supports will eventually topple under its own ponderous weight.
There can be no better place to start than to acknowledge that God created the universe; that is as rock solid as it