A god on a causal plane
Email Inquiry:Can you explain this further?
Did you mean "to be his/her source person?"
What would it mean, to "self-destruct?" Would the offspring dissolve into another state of existence? Or vanish altogether?
It is interesting, in terms of understanding how one's material forms over the course of many cycles of samsara, might play out or might have played out in the past.
Mi~Beloved’s Response:
In this case, the central figure is the god which is a masculine being. In another similar case the central figure could be a feminine being or even a gender-neutral being.
Such a being emerges from a causal plane which is full of potency for creating subtle forms and subsequent physical creations. Some of these emerge from causal but cannot manifest into physical creations and manifest as purely supernatural existences. This god-person would be an identity configuration in a silence-existence before emerging with or without objective awareness but always with subjective consciousness.
At the moment of emergence, a contrast occurs. This may be similar to a transparent jelly fish which has the color of sea water. Visually it cannot differentiate itself from the sea water. It has subjective consciousness and knows that it exists but it cannot sort itself visually. However after reaching a certain stage of maturity, its color may change to say light pink or light green. Then it will have the subjective evidence or experience and know that it is different to the sea water and to any other contents in that water.
When this god is there before the emergence, there is no need to sort itself, to know if it is inhabited by other individual identities but as soon as the emergence occurs there arises a need to do so. As soon as that need arises, other beings manifest in that being and then make an attempt to split off or be segregated from it. There is a simultaneous attraction and repulsion force which keeps those offspring in the being but with an awareness of selfhood with contrasting needs.
In some of these gods there is a complete harmony from top to bottom but in others there is an innate disharmony energy alongside a harmony energy. The segregated sub-beings get a feeling of:
“I want to be independent. But I do want to be relatively independent. Better to get rid of him, before my adventure begins.”
This feeling causes a tension of envy. When this energy flashes back to the god, he has to make a decision to either continue the expansion or terminate it.
The idea of killing then occurs but with a block energy which explains that killing would mean self-destruction and endless splitting off with little or no outcome control.
Usually at that point, the god stops developing and freezes the existence.
+++++++
Is there an atma in the offspring?
Or are the offspring made up of psychological adjuncts plus the material forms which sprung into existence due to that mentality?
There is an atma or individual limited self in the offspring. On that plane of existence the only adjunct is the sense of identity, which helps the atma or core-self to turn away from itself and to regard what is in contrast to it.
+++++++
I was just reading in a Buddhist text on Dependent Origination, that all of the bodies we inhabit during the cycle of samsara, whether they be human or supernatural or in the highest brahma worlds, are created on the basis of ignorance that their composition is made up of material elements, and therefore not substantial but always subject to birth and death on the basis of one's actions and resultant mentality.
I have paraphrased the text according to my understanding.
If we accept this statement about Dependent Origination, we must also face the implications of it.
What are the implications?
If the ignorance was primeval, or was there since the beginning of time, then it means that somehow it has to be absorbed by somebody. We are also left to figure if we could have resisted the ignorance during that causal beginning.
If all the bodies including the super subtle ones in the Brahma world were created on the basis of being ignorant of the perishability and unsatisfactory condition of such bodies, then wherefore that ignorance? Was it there before?
Did it exist side by side with the observing selves who later drew or did not draw the correct conclusion about the situation?
Suppose the ignorance is more powerful than the self, then what?
I went into the wrestling ring. Another wrestler also entered the ring. In the fight he whipped my butt. I barely escaped with my breath. What then should I do with the knowledge which I now have which is that initially I entered the ring with ignorance of the other wrestler’s potential?
