Is is possible to percieve God as an individual entity? 

Can the core essense of All That Is manifest in spirit form as an all-knowing, all-loving being? 

Can spirits in the afterlife will the appearance of this almighty entity through intent? 

Before reading Swedenborg's Heaven and Hell, I thought of God/All That Is/Source in nonphysical, nonhuman terms, and therefore did not consider the possibilities of the above questions .

However, Swedenborg's material has given me a new perspective upon the matter.

Swedenborg says there are three heavenly realms, the highest realm consisting of beings of the highest, or deepest, levels of love, goodness, and truth, and the lower two realms being made up of beings of decreasing levels of these godly qualities. 

Each realm has innumerous communities of these angelic beings, each community expressing their love, goodness, and truth in a different way than the other communities.

Swedenborg has a rather advanced perspective of what God is, especially for his time.  He believes God is the very essence of life, God is within all that is in heaven, and that the angels in heaven are therefore also parts of God, for the essence of God is within them.  He says angels are reflections of the totality of Heaven and God.  He sees everything as intimately connected, which I agree with.

Swedenborg says he has witnessed these heavenly communities as large groups of angels, and also in the form of one single being, as if all the beings of that community merged together to form one angelic entity.  He says these communities are also reflections of Heaven and God, in a larger form. 

He goes on to say that the angels in the true heavens perceive God in the same way- as a single entity.  Although God is actually much more than a single entity, he is at the same time able to manifest as one supreme angelic being. 

This actually makes a bit of sense to me.  Although God/All That Is is essentially nonhuman, I see no reason why God cannot manifest in an angelic/humanoid form.  Do you?

I'm not too keen on this Sweed guy, but if you want another perspective, read materials by Sant Mat masters. They have been around since the 1500s and longer. I recommend Kirpal Singh, Darshan Singh and Rajinder Singh. They have a different perspective on the heavenly realms.

Sorry Dude, but I'm going to have to write a long answer without being certain of what I say, because I'm still trying to figure it out.

To begin, in the beginning, I believe there was just one being known as God.  God figured out what his existence is about for a while until he reached the point when he decided to create the many beings he created. By creating them and seeing what they found out, more knowledge was obtained.

Through all of this, God never lost his ability to exist as a being that is to some extent independent from what he created. I say to some extent, because he used parts of his own being to create everything. Where  else would he get the ingredients, since nothing but himself exists?

Regarding whether he would incarnate himself as a person such as Jesus,  I could come up with intellectual explanations as to why he would or wouldn't, but my intellect could be wrong. So I'll state what my experience has told me thus far.

When it comes to the night in heaven experience I speak of, in the past I've stated that I was able to have it eventhough I was an atheist, because I was basically a good loving person. Recently something has occurred to me. As I stated before, at the beginning of the experience I came to understand in a way that was certain that the story of Christ is true. This really surprised me, yet I accepted it as fact, because the manner in which I understood was much more certain than my old way of thinking.

Perhaps, and this is the new part, I was allowed to experience heaven after finding out about Christ, because I accepted what I found out.

Even though I found out about Christ during this experience, as far as I can remember, I didn't find out one way or the other if he and God are the same being.

One night about 2 years ago I tried to remember the above experience with Christ, and I tuned into the memory deeper than I usally do. I tuned into an understanding of how Christ has divine authority. Whenever I accepted this fact I found myself ascending in some way (e.g., moving towards the light), whenever I didn't, I found myself descending in some way (e.g., walking down a stairwell).

The question is, does Christ have authority because God gave it to him, or because he is God?

I have also shared about how I read one night that the  Gospel of Thomas speaks of Jesus as if he was an enlightened being; Matthew, Mark and Luke speak of him as a messenger of God; and John speaks of him as if he is God.

Later that evening I prayed for a dream that told me which gospel presents an accurate statement of who Christ is. In the middle of the night I woke up to write dream notes, and I saw the light of a spirit flash that was much bigger and radiated more energy than any spirit flash I've experienced before.  The presence of this spirit felt divine and more real than this World. It worked on my energy for about 15 minutes in a manner that was beyond how my kundalini ever did so. Ever since the energy in my upper chakras has been more alive, balanced and clear.

I didn't see nor hear Jesus during this experience, yet I felt like I was in contact with his presence. Plus, such a visitacion seemed like a natural response to my prayer. Plus, he has shown his human image to me a number of times.

For the above experience, I don't know if Christ was telling me if the Gospel of John is correct, or if he was simply telling me that his spirit can visit anybody he wants.

I asked Christ for a clarification a number of times, but haven't received an answer. I don't know why this is so (perhaps I missed it).  There have been numerous times when I haven't received an answer for a question. In some cases, such as this case, perhaps it is up to me to find the answer within.

Dude,

For someone who has just started reading ES, you seem to have grasped his main observations and ideas and very well.  I'm impressed. 

ES sees God as the foundation of our very being, and at the same time, as real being.  From God comes what is "good" and what is "true" in our lives.  As such, when we act lovingly we allow more of God to enter into our thoughts and actions.  The converse is true; when we act out of personal interest, unlovingly, or prize falsity, we voluntarily cut ourselves off from the inflow from God.

I don't think ES is for everyone.  He wrote 300+ years ago, but rather than being a christian fundamentalist, he took the mind of a scientist to the afterlife and wrote about what he saw.  Much of what he found contradicted some common church dogma of his day, and put him at risk of being tried for heresy. 

M

Just to add something to what everyone else has said so well - Vaisnavas have a doctrine of 'acinta-abhedabheda" or "inconceivable oneness in separation" as regards the Ultimate Godhead/Krishna, which makes a great deal of sense to me. . .

Thanks Matt

Another interesting thing Swedenborg discusses about how God is perceived in the heavens:

He says God takes the form of an intense burning light in the sky, if I understood this correctly, in which every angel faces, or rather, which is in the center of every angel's perception, which is similar to our sun here, only immensely brighter.  This is in the highest heaven, the "Heavenly Heaven."

In the lower heaven, the "Spiritual Heaven," God is perceived in the same fashion, only as a less intense, sparkling ball of light, more like our moon. 

The angelic communities are situated to this sun/moon according to their acceptance of divine love and truth.  Those more accepting are closer than those less accepting.

He claims not only to have been told this by angels, but to have witnessed it himself many times. 

Swedenborg says that while God is always shining his light down from the sky upon the heavens, he can also simultaneously manifest in the angelic form described previously. 

Very interesting stuff.
   

If there is an actual God of all and everything I feel this entity could do whatever it wanted. Even appear in a movie as George Burns.

I haven't read ES yet and I'm just starting Seth stuff, but it feels like ES has his own impressions that he brings with him as we all would and while I enjoy the subjective experiences of others as much as anyone I have to let those fall by the wayside and grab from each source the things that resonate for me.

I've been putting it off but I'm going to read him too, but I guess the angelic visions and the punishments have kept me at bay...but alas I'm ignorant at this moment and I don't want to be.

I find it odd that we are not more focused on Monroe and Moen... through out their works is a the current well thought out and tested mysticism and cosmology... Moen's Curiousity cosmograph has it all if you can figure it out... Monroe's rote from his Inspec... and the Gardeners have the whole ball of wax in a form that needs unraveling to be sure but this material is all in a modern context with a lot of sound reverse engineering material to support it. Just a thought gang... please don't crucify me... opps... I mean regale me for this point of view...  :)

My understanding from both TMI and Bruce is that they encourage you to explore and report back your findings and don't pretend that these focus levels are "set in stone," or that their observations about cosmology are "the way it is."  I can't speak for others, but the reason I bring up other explorers' observations, whether astral or NDEs is that it can only expand our understanding, especially where we find commonalities from people of different backgrounds.

M

Again the limitation of time and expression leaves a lot of wholes in arguments through which Mac trucks can be driven... I am not suggesting people not explore or follow specific desires to review past material... what I am getting at is this... there is only so much time and effort available to each of us... I think it is more productive and profitable to develope those things which have a lot of "knowns" in place... in the end we each have to convert the "beliefs" we encounter into "knowns"... bear in mind... my "knowns" are only "beliefs" to those who read them... it is incumbant upon each individual to build their own library of "knowns"... that is all I am attempting however crudely or inadequately to say or present... here is a perfect example... I just recently discovered that I have a root belief that consciously projecting is dangerous... that goes very deep... it is the crux of my problem and I am working on it... when I share this with seasoned veterans... they either forgot they had this same problem or never had it so it is dismissed... but, a novice reading that may realize they have a similar root problem and profit from my discovery... that is the long and short of it....  :)

Regarding the light Dude spoke of, there was a period of about two weeks where three times while awake my consciousness would suddenly shift for a moment and I would see this bright golden light that seemed to be far out in space, yet it was also close. It felt intense, divine and familiar. I figured it might be my higher self light, but perhaps not.

At the end of my night in heaven experience I saw like a bright star, and I believe it represented Christ.

Regarding what Seraphis1 wrote about finding it odd, Robert Monroe and Bruce Moen didn't say anything in their books about what they found out about Christ.

Perhaps they didn't find information about Christ because they didn't seek it.

I sought answers and found some. Swedenborg sought them and apparently found out a lot. I'm still reading his book, so I haven't come to any definite conclusions. Perhaps his descriptions are so body based because this is what people from his time period could understand.

Seraphis

I think its safe to say that a vast majority of posters here are at least semi-fluent in the Monroe and Moen material.  But are we to just read these two sources and cease all further learning and growing?  There are other explorers out there with unique perspectives and findings which we can likewise benefit from.  If you are so intent on discussing Monroe and Moen, then I'd recommend creating a thread about them.   

Recoverer

That's pretty cool man.  I've decided to dedicate my future projections to exploring the true heavens that Swedenborg speaks of. 

I Am Dude wrote on Nov 9^th, 2009 at 1:58pm:

Seraphis I think its safe to say that a vast majority of posters here are at least semi-fluent in the Monroe and Moen material.  But are we to just read these two sources and cease all further learning and growing?  There are other explorers out there with unique perspectives and findings which we can likewise benefit from.  If you are so intent on discussing Monroe and Moen, then I'd recommend creating a thread about them.

Hi Dude: I wasn't suggesting that at all. But, I like your idea and will post shortly a thread doing just that. What I am saying is to use M/M as a template to evaluate the material... M/M have the best and latest ideas with which to do so... what I think we need to avoid is speculation and reading into material things that aren't there and can't be supported by sound "knowns".

I would like you to report to the board is ES is actually describing Hollow Heavens on focus 23 to 25 and not focus 27 which has an reception center to help the newly deceased to adjust and acclimate... they are not rejected because of some weird notion about trinity and the like... could you find this out for us???  8-)

I'm still reading Swedenborg and figuring out what he's about, but he speaks of states of being that are beyond the hollow heaven paradigm.

Seraphis

Much of what Swedenborg describes regarding the nature of the afterlife syncs up nicely with Monroe's line of thought, although it is sometimes necessary to transfer Swedenborg's ideas into a more modern context, like that of Monroe and other modern explorers. 

I don't believe Swedenborg is describing hollow heavens.  Take a look at Doc's thread on Swedenborg's three stages of the afterlife.  Monroe's focus 27 fits into the second stage of Swedenborg's cosmology, and after this is where their material really differs.  In his third stage of the afterlife, Swedenborg describes an ascension into true heavens after focus 27, whereas Monroe doesn't really go into what happens, other than an integration with the Higher Self.  I'm really not sure what to make of it at this point, but I still have a lot of research and exploring to do.  However, it seems that maybe Swedenborg was on to something that perhaps Monroe wasn't open to experience.

It is understood that what Swedenborg discovered may not be 100% accurate due to his outdated belief system and limited capacity for understanding advanced concepts which we now take for granted.  However, it is quite easy to translate his findings into a more modern context, and it is plain to see that he knew what he was talking about.

There is a thread here not so long ago, called the second stage of death- the real afterlife? (or something like that).  In it, I posted ES' description of the first two stages of what he found out happens when we die, including excellent posts by Bruce which correlate what he has found to ES' description (eventhough both were separate by centuries of time).

M

Going by what I read thus far, Swedenborg would probably say that focus 27 corresponds to a level where spirits love each other, but they don't have a big interest in loving God.

Moving onto higher selves and the heaven Swedenborg  speaks of might have something in common. When you reconnect to your higher self you reconnect to God. You allow yourself to receive an inflow of God's spirit.

It is possible that Monroe and Moen didn't find out about Christ in the way Swedenborg did, because some people get turned off when you speak of Christ, and they wouldn't consider what Monroe and Moen have to say if they said a lot about Christ.

Some of these people got turned off about the Christ ideal because of how some fundamentalists have connected Christ to a fear-based and judgmental way of thinking that is inaccurate.