I have a question from not ordinary point of view. I hope God will
excuse me for I want to know the truth more deeper.
They say that God is like a human(body). Is it because we are humans?
What if we were dolphins and sufficiently intelligent, would we
consider Him like dolphin? Or more likely if we were from other
planets and have "strange" kind of bodies, would
He have the same "strange" body?
Of course I have read that He has a lot of bodies. But people worship
Him in human like form and think that is all to it. Is it not that by
worshiping Him in this only way all the world around us become very simple, very
chip? It's seems to me that in this way we forget about His inconceivable depths.
Sorry if I have said something to bold, but I have just read
interesting pages which illuminated in me this point.
God from another point of view
As you know, your asking this question created many other thought processes in me and one of them was the lecture last Saturday, Polarity, Spin, and Attraction. Originally, this answer was going to be very long, but since the lecture already gave me a chance to express these ideas to some extent, I will simply answer your question directly and briefly as best I can. Thank you again for inspiring my thought process. I am grateful.
I do not think that God will have a problem with your asking this question. Since God has no fear, God does not discourage you from asking any question you wish. As God wants you to continuously develop to become the greatest you can possibly be, it would be against God's interest to place a restriction on what you can question. To prohibit questioning is to suppress intelligence, something that is usually done by those who have something to hide, such as hidden flaws, fundamental weaknesses, or unstated motivations, amongst other possible reasons. Since God has none of these defects and is eager for you to uncover the truth, questions such as these declare boldly your right as an intelligent portion of divinity to express what you already know within, but were formerly afraid to manifest externally. Congratulations for your courage. Asking those questions which seem to be quite taboo makes for interesting discussions and stimulates more growth than hiding your doubts in the closet of darkness.
I have heard this question asked in private only a few times. An intelligent person who is a freethinker must address this at one point. The problem of a fixed and absolute form of God spoken about in India (even if there are many different forms they do not change once they have appeared) makes one question whether human beings have given themselves an elite position within the universe with Indians having an elite position on Earth. Considering that at present there is much information about beings from other planets (whether you believe it or not, there is much consistent information available), an intelligent person must wonder why God must have an eternally non-changing form ultimate form of a human being? Consider the plight of beings in the universe that are not human. They must now accept a God who might just look impossibly ugly to them according to their own standards of beauty. Since God shall be all-attractive by definition, how would they relate to a form that is alien to them?
Obviously we cannot answer this definitively. Unless one has contacts with alien beings and trusts their information about God or one has God's direct answer to the question, one can never really be certain of the true situation. But then again, would you believe a person who claimed to have such direct information? I would find it hard to believe it unless I also had some personal experience.
Let us look at this from another point of view. God can have as many forms as God wants. God can also choose to not manifest any particular form to contact or connect with those who do not wish to tune to a form. All that counts to God is that the person making the connection finds the connection real, relevant, significant, and deep, for God is interested in the evolutionary benefit of all. For beings of non-human forms, God can communicate with them in forms familiar to them which capture their hearts and minds.
I do not think that God will have a problem with your asking this question. Since God has no fear, God does not discourage you from asking any question you wish. As God wants you to continuously develop to become the greatest you can possibly be, it would be against God's interest to place a restriction on what you can question. To prohibit questioning is to suppress intelligence, something that is usually done by those who have something to hide, such as hidden flaws, fundamental weaknesses, or unstated motivations, amongst other possible reasons. Since God has none of these defects and is eager for you to uncover the truth, questions such as these declare boldly your right as an intelligent portion of divinity to express what you already know within, but were formerly afraid to manifest externally. Congratulations for your courage. Asking those questions which seem to be quite taboo makes for interesting discussions and stimulates more growth than hiding your doubts in the closet of darkness.
I have heard this question asked in private only a few times. An intelligent person who is a freethinker must address this at one point. The problem of a fixed and absolute form of God spoken about in India (even if there are many different forms they do not change once they have appeared) makes one question whether human beings have given themselves an elite position within the universe with Indians having an elite position on Earth. Considering that at present there is much information about beings from other planets (whether you believe it or not, there is much consistent information available), an intelligent person must wonder why God must have an eternally non-changing form ultimate form of a human being? Consider the plight of beings in the universe that are not human. They must now accept a God who might just look impossibly ugly to them according to their own standards of beauty. Since God shall be all-attractive by definition, how would they relate to a form that is alien to them?
Obviously we cannot answer this definitively. Unless one has contacts with alien beings and trusts their information about God or one has God's direct answer to the question, one can never really be certain of the true situation. But then again, would you believe a person who claimed to have such direct information? I would find it hard to believe it unless I also had some personal experience.
Let us look at this from another point of view. God can have as many forms as God wants. God can also choose to not manifest any particular form to contact or connect with those who do not wish to tune to a form. All that counts to God is that the person making the connection finds the connection real, relevant, significant, and deep, for God is interested in the evolutionary benefit of all. For beings of non-human forms, God can communicate with them in forms familiar to them which capture their hearts and minds.
Thank you for your answer.
I also think that this forms of Gods came from the ancient times, when
people think that humans are the kings of all creates, and our
planet, or where we live, is the most important place in the
universe (maybe because we are also so important).
An interesting thing: It seems Christians never see Krishna and Krishnaits never see
Christ or Maria.( Of course Christ is not God, but people think so in
one way or another)
It seems that God appears to us in the form we want to see him.
I also think that this forms of Gods came from the ancient times, when
people think that humans are the kings of all creates, and our
planet, or where we live, is the most important place in the
universe (maybe because we are also so important).
An interesting thing: It seems Christians never see Krishna and Krishnaits never see
Christ or Maria.( Of course Christ is not God, but people think so in
one way or another)
It seems that God appears to us in the form we want to see him.
Funny. On the eve I just talked to one person whom I have inspired to read Walsh, about the God. I tried to prove that the God has impersonal aspect and personal, but personal above as, many followers vaishnavs cultures saw Krishna in the meditation. God has come to them in such form, according to their belief in such form?
And remember, there is a statement, what Krishna has subdued the appearance of all essences in the Universe-it exaggeration? And how see itself those showers which enter into eternal games and are borrowed there by the certain actions? It too result of their belief or so occurs really in a spiritual empire?
My problem in that conversation, probably that I have no such deep experience to learn as actually. But now there is a question, whether there will be my experience аbsolut truth or again it is fruits of my belief? The last "terrible" opinion on followers of an impersonal way, I have certainly changed, especially after book Svami Yogonanda, but questions as you can see remain.
And remember, there is a statement, what Krishna has subdued the appearance of all essences in the Universe-it exaggeration? And how see itself those showers which enter into eternal games and are borrowed there by the certain actions? It too result of their belief or so occurs really in a spiritual empire?
My problem in that conversation, probably that I have no such deep experience to learn as actually. But now there is a question, whether there will be my experience аbsolut truth or again it is fruits of my belief? The last "terrible" opinion on followers of an impersonal way, I have certainly changed, especially after book Svami Yogonanda, but questions as you can see remain.
I understand your dilemma. How can you discuss topics of which you have not got a clear understanding of when you are not simply repeating something you have heard or read? If you engage in a discussion with someone and they propose something that you ‘know' is not complete or is incorrect, on what basis do you continue the discussion? Certainly the easiest way to discuss is from the platform of your own personal experience, but what if you do not have an experience that relates to the topic? Certainly you have some experience and that is a good point to start from. In time, your experience will grow and your capacity to discuss that experience will grow with it. Seek out these experiences without fear and they will come to you. If you honestly call out to the Their Lordships, the universe, or your guides or angels, certainly they will respond.
This leads us to the more important question: What is it you wish to share with others?
Formerly, some of us [who were Hare Krishnas] had the idea that we knew the absolute truth and it was our God-given responsibility to give that to others as it was without change. It was not important to us whether they wanted it or not and therefore we would chant anywhere and everywhere, even if they found it obnoxious, troublesome, or silly. We would give them a book by hook or by crook since all that counted was they had it whether they threw it away in the next five minutes and hated us forever or not. After all, we were the messengers of God and we were on a mission that had to be fulfilled regardless of the cost. You get the point. This ideal is a comforting one in that it makes life simple and answers all the questions one might have about how to relate with the world.
Now you, and many others, have changed. You no longer see things like that. Yet you still engage in talks with people where you try to ‘prove' something to them but now you feel uncomfortable about declaring something as true simply because someone told you it was. You yearn for your own experience so you can share on a level that cannot be contradicted by mere words or philosophical edicts yet you lack the experience to answer all questions. My question is, "Why must there be an answer to all questions? Is there something wrong with allowing questions to answer themselves over time?" Growing together into an answer is organic and healthy.
There is no harm is saying, "I feel it to be so or I think it might be so." An absolutist would deny your right to say so for to them it is a declaration of ignorance. Since you are not an absolutist, you should not worry about this. Your honesty in your discussion with others fuels the sharing between you and is the basis of love. If you care about others, then you should share with them that which you know to be valid. As much as you know, you can share, for what you know to be true is all you can truly offer to others. Certainly you can just talk without any connection to your heart, but you are no longer satisfied with such an impersonal idea. You want to connect with those you speak by sharing your essence and your ever-increasing awareness of life. Yet, try to avoid stating that what you now know as true is unchanging for as you see things from newer perspectives you find nuances and surprises that you would never expect were there. Give yourself room to grow and to find new and better ways of seeing life. As your awareness grows, so shall your experience of reality. If you think that you must experience reality in one particular kind of way, you are limiting your growth and cutting off your chances to be aware of things you could not now imagine. Let your growth be organic and you shall experience all that is available to you.
As your experience expands share it with others openly and without pride. State simply: This is what I know now. I shall know more later on and when I do I shall share that with you as a loving exchange. I do not state that this is all that is to be known or that it is an absolute that can never transform; rather, it is what I know now. I am sharing this with you in our loving exchange and I am sure what you share with me will also give me impetus to increase my awareness of life.
There is nothing to prove right and nothing to prove wrong. After all, who would you prove it to? Mainly you are convincing yourself. If you need to prove something is right to someone else, it speaks more about your lack of belief in what you are saying than the other person's need to know it is correct. Further, sometimes we try to convince others of what we are saying either because we are bored and need some sport or we need to conquer someone else to prove ourselves great orators or scholars (the disease of some brahmanas). I suppose the only really valid time to prove and conquer in this way is when you are selling something. As you not selling yourself (are you?) then you have no need to prove or convince anyone of anything.
Why not just talk with others and share with them? If they find your experiences useful to them, they will take them, otherwise not. If they do not accept your experience and therefore have no interest in you as a person, then they are not the kind of person with whom you can have a longer term relationship. If they appreciate the exchange with you and are not concerned about the substance of it, there is a potential to continue the exchange. If they appreciate what you say and gain from it, even up to the point of having a similar experience to what you related to them, then you have found a friend and also given that friend something of value.
The idea that we speak at someone or give something to someone by convincing them they had a wrong idea is not conducive to our own or other's growth. I know that others think it is, but if you examine it carefully, being a kind and loving friend who shares with others as they need, or as they value, is worth so much it cannot be described. Sometimes doing this at the right time saves someone from having to spend years getting entangled in an ideal that does not serve them over the long term.
As for me, I have concluded it is better to continue to be a seeker of the truth forever. Those who share in my journey for some time might find some solace or companionship on their spiritual journey.
Those you impact by sharing the means to experience something significant will remember you fondly for all time.
This leads us to the more important question: What is it you wish to share with others?
Formerly, some of us [who were Hare Krishnas] had the idea that we knew the absolute truth and it was our God-given responsibility to give that to others as it was without change. It was not important to us whether they wanted it or not and therefore we would chant anywhere and everywhere, even if they found it obnoxious, troublesome, or silly. We would give them a book by hook or by crook since all that counted was they had it whether they threw it away in the next five minutes and hated us forever or not. After all, we were the messengers of God and we were on a mission that had to be fulfilled regardless of the cost. You get the point. This ideal is a comforting one in that it makes life simple and answers all the questions one might have about how to relate with the world.
Now you, and many others, have changed. You no longer see things like that. Yet you still engage in talks with people where you try to ‘prove' something to them but now you feel uncomfortable about declaring something as true simply because someone told you it was. You yearn for your own experience so you can share on a level that cannot be contradicted by mere words or philosophical edicts yet you lack the experience to answer all questions. My question is, "Why must there be an answer to all questions? Is there something wrong with allowing questions to answer themselves over time?" Growing together into an answer is organic and healthy.
There is no harm is saying, "I feel it to be so or I think it might be so." An absolutist would deny your right to say so for to them it is a declaration of ignorance. Since you are not an absolutist, you should not worry about this. Your honesty in your discussion with others fuels the sharing between you and is the basis of love. If you care about others, then you should share with them that which you know to be valid. As much as you know, you can share, for what you know to be true is all you can truly offer to others. Certainly you can just talk without any connection to your heart, but you are no longer satisfied with such an impersonal idea. You want to connect with those you speak by sharing your essence and your ever-increasing awareness of life. Yet, try to avoid stating that what you now know as true is unchanging for as you see things from newer perspectives you find nuances and surprises that you would never expect were there. Give yourself room to grow and to find new and better ways of seeing life. As your awareness grows, so shall your experience of reality. If you think that you must experience reality in one particular kind of way, you are limiting your growth and cutting off your chances to be aware of things you could not now imagine. Let your growth be organic and you shall experience all that is available to you.
As your experience expands share it with others openly and without pride. State simply: This is what I know now. I shall know more later on and when I do I shall share that with you as a loving exchange. I do not state that this is all that is to be known or that it is an absolute that can never transform; rather, it is what I know now. I am sharing this with you in our loving exchange and I am sure what you share with me will also give me impetus to increase my awareness of life.
There is nothing to prove right and nothing to prove wrong. After all, who would you prove it to? Mainly you are convincing yourself. If you need to prove something is right to someone else, it speaks more about your lack of belief in what you are saying than the other person's need to know it is correct. Further, sometimes we try to convince others of what we are saying either because we are bored and need some sport or we need to conquer someone else to prove ourselves great orators or scholars (the disease of some brahmanas). I suppose the only really valid time to prove and conquer in this way is when you are selling something. As you not selling yourself (are you?) then you have no need to prove or convince anyone of anything.
Why not just talk with others and share with them? If they find your experiences useful to them, they will take them, otherwise not. If they do not accept your experience and therefore have no interest in you as a person, then they are not the kind of person with whom you can have a longer term relationship. If they appreciate the exchange with you and are not concerned about the substance of it, there is a potential to continue the exchange. If they appreciate what you say and gain from it, even up to the point of having a similar experience to what you related to them, then you have found a friend and also given that friend something of value.
The idea that we speak at someone or give something to someone by convincing them they had a wrong idea is not conducive to our own or other's growth. I know that others think it is, but if you examine it carefully, being a kind and loving friend who shares with others as they need, or as they value, is worth so much it cannot be described. Sometimes doing this at the right time saves someone from having to spend years getting entangled in an ideal that does not serve them over the long term.
As for me, I have concluded it is better to continue to be a seeker of the truth forever. Those who share in my journey for some time might find some solace or companionship on their spiritual journey.
Those you impact by sharing the means to experience something significant will remember you fondly for all time.
-
Guest
Dear Hari!
I have read Your post, and for some period of time I have changed my point of view. When somebody (You) say something that coincides with my internal feeling, I loose my feeling of loneliness, and I open myself for surrounding. It happens very rare to me. I have looked around me, I have seen the same things, but I felt them something important. Now I am not very experienced man, I had not some mystical experiences connected with the traveling to other planets. But inside me I feel some power and mystery, something that close to me, something I can connect with. It is all my experience. Sometimes I can see these things outside. But it disappears very quickly (why?).
The question about absolute and relative forms of God, about His form of relationship with us, about our absolute form is very important for me. Any contact (for us) is a contact of forms (mental, physical). No form, no limit, no contact. What do You think about it? If everything changes: God can take any form, we change forms, and maybe any form is not essential? Does the form limit relationship?
I have noticed that when I try to go deeply to some question, I hit on duality: good-evil, good-bad, form-content and I stop here, I understand that I went nowhere, the passageway is closed. There is a childish question: Name two things, equal and different at the same time. The child as distinct from adult say: an original and a copy. They are equal and different. The usual logic does not work here. Let's say A does not equal to B, and B does not equal to C, then A does not equal to C. But they can be equal for children. I think the logic is a math instrument, and the heart is sentiments. What should we follow?
Sorry for such long question. In brief: what do You think about form and essence? And what should we follow trying to live with our inner nature?
I also would like to say You Great thanks for ability to read You and to write to You. I also thankful to the people maintaining this forum.
I have read Your post, and for some period of time I have changed my point of view. When somebody (You) say something that coincides with my internal feeling, I loose my feeling of loneliness, and I open myself for surrounding. It happens very rare to me. I have looked around me, I have seen the same things, but I felt them something important. Now I am not very experienced man, I had not some mystical experiences connected with the traveling to other planets. But inside me I feel some power and mystery, something that close to me, something I can connect with. It is all my experience. Sometimes I can see these things outside. But it disappears very quickly (why?).
The question about absolute and relative forms of God, about His form of relationship with us, about our absolute form is very important for me. Any contact (for us) is a contact of forms (mental, physical). No form, no limit, no contact. What do You think about it? If everything changes: God can take any form, we change forms, and maybe any form is not essential? Does the form limit relationship?
I have noticed that when I try to go deeply to some question, I hit on duality: good-evil, good-bad, form-content and I stop here, I understand that I went nowhere, the passageway is closed. There is a childish question: Name two things, equal and different at the same time. The child as distinct from adult say: an original and a copy. They are equal and different. The usual logic does not work here. Let's say A does not equal to B, and B does not equal to C, then A does not equal to C. But they can be equal for children. I think the logic is a math instrument, and the heart is sentiments. What should we follow?
Sorry for such long question. In brief: what do You think about form and essence? And what should we follow trying to live with our inner nature?
I also would like to say You Great thanks for ability to read You and to write to You. I also thankful to the people maintaining this forum.
It is important to examine why you feel connected after you hear something I, or someone else you might find significant to you, say something you believed to be true. This indicates to me that you have a very low self-esteem that causes you not to have faith in your intuition and your realization. This is not the best attitude, for it weakens your capacity and integrity during your day-to-day life when you doubt yourself because you do not have the possibility to confirm what you feel. Have faith in your inner self and realization for they are the only things that will guide you through life. After all, the main reason you found what I said to be interesting is its similarity to what you already knew. The most important factor is that you already knew it. Believe in this. You will realize you know more than you think.
You say that form, or some kind of limitation, is essential for contact. I am not sure what kind of contact you mean, but the deepest contacts are those we establish through feeling. It is hard to even speak about the form or limits of feelings. After all, love is love; hate is hate, where do we set the boundaries or limits on these emotions? I suppose one could try to speak about the forms of love or hate, but one might have to speak in terms of the manifestation or effect of these emotions more than the direct experience of them. This is why poets create allegories to describe their love rather than using quantitatively limited phrases. Something about the sentence, "I love you as much as three buckets of tomatoes," doesn't seem very accurate or pleasing; whereas, "I love you as much as the sky is blue and the sun is bright," strikes our emotional strings in a more fitting manner. Now how does one quantify "as much as the sky is blue?" What is the limit of that blue?
Can you even speak of the independent form of blue? It is a color and in that sense a form, but it is a dependent form; one that needs to be applied to another physically existing object such as a wall or a car. After all, in the allegory above the blue sky is not even blue. It appears to be so due to the interaction of light on the atmosphere filtering through from outer space and therefore as a subjective reality it defies quantification. Although it has a perceivable form, it is not really what it appears to be, but do we care? Not really, we are mainly concerned with the essence of the sky as the basis of our atmosphere within which cycle the constant changes from sunny day to dark night, or a clear day to a rainy and cloudy one. The sky is in one sense, formless, yet forms manifest within it and from it according to the atmosphere around our planet. I do not think form limits contact; rather, I think it is a vehicle through which connection takes place. It is a means through which the interactions of connection occur and a means by which connection transforms.
Now when we speak of God, we run into various problems. God defies quantification and when we attempt to quantify God we say, "God is great," or "God is all-powerful," but these terms are abstract and do not specifically quantify God or limit God with a specified amount of greatness or power. Even the term, all-powerful, is abstract as we have no way to understand it other than to say the all-powerful can do anything at any time and no force can stop it. The thought of that makes me shudder. But when we speak of God as all-powerful we do not worry as we trust God, or at least some of us do, and therefore we don't fear the potential abuse of such power due to the divine love that tempers and guides it. For those who do not accept the power or existence of a God, there is no discussing these points, but for those who accept the divine, the essential point is love, for it is divine love only to which we can connect. How do you connect to the great or to the power? I suppose those who live in awe of that greatness and power can feel secure as the dominated servant, but that is not an acceptable connection for all. Others feel connected through the unconditional, all-pervading love. This is not a form, is without limit, and cannot be quantified, but can be experienced in specific ways which confirm the existence of the divine love and which encourage us to expand our connections to the loving source of all balance and support.
Form is not essence. Essence requires no form. If essence finds it advantageous to assume form, it can do so, but essence is without form by definition. The essence of spirituality is spiritual energy and we are that. Our being is that energy and that energy is essence. Since we are conscious and our consciousness is active, we manifest our essence energetically. According to the situation we are in, this manifestation will be in different forms. When essence interacts with environment, form is the basis within which the interaction takes place. We are essence, yet we manifest it within form.
Some people insist that this essence has an eternal form and that the form and the essence in that eternal, liberated, state are non-different, but this concept is not contradictory to what I said. Essence assembles form according to its consciousness, for it is the nature of essence to create form according to desire. Essence desires to manifest according to what it is. Our consciousness has inclinations and preferences, and according to the situations we are in, we assume a situation appropriate to the manifestation of our energy. It is the nature of our energy to flow and by flowing to create manifestations and forms. In most cases, this energy requires a vehicle, or a form, through which to flow according to our specific and unique consciousness and the manner in which we desire to manifest it. This seems to be the way all spiritual beings manifest themselves.
As essence, we are what we are by definition. When we are fully aware of the essence we are, we will correspondingly manifest that in our appearance, in our words, in our acts, and in consideration of everything to which our energy connects. This is how we "assemble" the forms that represent what we are when there are no other external impositions upon us. This is the spiritual body.
You say that form, or some kind of limitation, is essential for contact. I am not sure what kind of contact you mean, but the deepest contacts are those we establish through feeling. It is hard to even speak about the form or limits of feelings. After all, love is love; hate is hate, where do we set the boundaries or limits on these emotions? I suppose one could try to speak about the forms of love or hate, but one might have to speak in terms of the manifestation or effect of these emotions more than the direct experience of them. This is why poets create allegories to describe their love rather than using quantitatively limited phrases. Something about the sentence, "I love you as much as three buckets of tomatoes," doesn't seem very accurate or pleasing; whereas, "I love you as much as the sky is blue and the sun is bright," strikes our emotional strings in a more fitting manner. Now how does one quantify "as much as the sky is blue?" What is the limit of that blue?
Can you even speak of the independent form of blue? It is a color and in that sense a form, but it is a dependent form; one that needs to be applied to another physically existing object such as a wall or a car. After all, in the allegory above the blue sky is not even blue. It appears to be so due to the interaction of light on the atmosphere filtering through from outer space and therefore as a subjective reality it defies quantification. Although it has a perceivable form, it is not really what it appears to be, but do we care? Not really, we are mainly concerned with the essence of the sky as the basis of our atmosphere within which cycle the constant changes from sunny day to dark night, or a clear day to a rainy and cloudy one. The sky is in one sense, formless, yet forms manifest within it and from it according to the atmosphere around our planet. I do not think form limits contact; rather, I think it is a vehicle through which connection takes place. It is a means through which the interactions of connection occur and a means by which connection transforms.
Now when we speak of God, we run into various problems. God defies quantification and when we attempt to quantify God we say, "God is great," or "God is all-powerful," but these terms are abstract and do not specifically quantify God or limit God with a specified amount of greatness or power. Even the term, all-powerful, is abstract as we have no way to understand it other than to say the all-powerful can do anything at any time and no force can stop it. The thought of that makes me shudder. But when we speak of God as all-powerful we do not worry as we trust God, or at least some of us do, and therefore we don't fear the potential abuse of such power due to the divine love that tempers and guides it. For those who do not accept the power or existence of a God, there is no discussing these points, but for those who accept the divine, the essential point is love, for it is divine love only to which we can connect. How do you connect to the great or to the power? I suppose those who live in awe of that greatness and power can feel secure as the dominated servant, but that is not an acceptable connection for all. Others feel connected through the unconditional, all-pervading love. This is not a form, is without limit, and cannot be quantified, but can be experienced in specific ways which confirm the existence of the divine love and which encourage us to expand our connections to the loving source of all balance and support.
Form is not essence. Essence requires no form. If essence finds it advantageous to assume form, it can do so, but essence is without form by definition. The essence of spirituality is spiritual energy and we are that. Our being is that energy and that energy is essence. Since we are conscious and our consciousness is active, we manifest our essence energetically. According to the situation we are in, this manifestation will be in different forms. When essence interacts with environment, form is the basis within which the interaction takes place. We are essence, yet we manifest it within form.
Some people insist that this essence has an eternal form and that the form and the essence in that eternal, liberated, state are non-different, but this concept is not contradictory to what I said. Essence assembles form according to its consciousness, for it is the nature of essence to create form according to desire. Essence desires to manifest according to what it is. Our consciousness has inclinations and preferences, and according to the situations we are in, we assume a situation appropriate to the manifestation of our energy. It is the nature of our energy to flow and by flowing to create manifestations and forms. In most cases, this energy requires a vehicle, or a form, through which to flow according to our specific and unique consciousness and the manner in which we desire to manifest it. This seems to be the way all spiritual beings manifest themselves.
As essence, we are what we are by definition. When we are fully aware of the essence we are, we will correspondingly manifest that in our appearance, in our words, in our acts, and in consideration of everything to which our energy connects. This is how we "assemble" the forms that represent what we are when there are no other external impositions upon us. This is the spiritual body.