Contentious Issues
Controversy or Blasphemy?
Exploring and analysing the «Divine Realms», even mentioning the name: «God», may seem to some to be controversial, hare-brained or even superstitious. In other quarters, it will be viewed as shocking, irreverent and possibly blasphemous. However, if THEE is to be a comprehensive account of psychosocial reality, then it must explore and account for divine phenomena. These are not woolly notions, but immensely influential, persistent and universal human experiences. To ignore or reject them would be like shutting your eyes to what exists because of some personal belief. Keep your belief and explore with me: what harm can there be in that?
More ►
Although there are only 3 in THEE, that seems to be enough to underpin the ideas within the world's numerous religious traditions. Please note that «» and «» are far larger topics dealt with elsewhere within THEE.
It's Too Simple!
Objectively, this structure may look so simple as to be over-simplified. But the complexities that bedevil most studies are inevitable because they are investigating exemplifications. Numerous diverse social, cultural and maturational factors, as well as the nature and bias of the individual author(s), affect what is observed. There is never going to be a simple replica of the basic THEE model.
Many traditional and modern accounts seem to conflate experiential states, existence states, spiritual states, psychopathology, cultural features, attention issues, and personal identity types. However, a popular modern system of numerous spiritual levels/planes based on diligent scholarship has been developed by Ken Wilber
after Jean Gebser and others.
I imagine that in practice, once Divine beings within the are taken as existing, the imagination can be set free to embroider, develop and multiply divine beings and realms. Over time, some extremely complicated cosmogonies and esoteric cosmologies would develop, and indeed this is the case: e.g. there is a Buddhist version with up to 31 levels. These schemas are inevitably taken at face value by believers or observers in the absence of any relevant frame of reference.
Many have tried to correlate different schemas of consciousness and divine beings. They are always hierarchical and there is some consistency. However, they are not otherwise easily comparable. See this example.
Ranges within Planes
As you will provide examples from your own experience to flesh out this framework, you must be aware that each covers an enormously wide range of forms of existence.
Examples on the Practical Plane
Examples on the Psychological Plane
Operating the Quests
were developed from the via imagining the Model Beings. However, your operation of a is not aligned to any specific or defined by it. Some alignments seem to jump out but I do not think there is any direct correspondence. In any case, there are only to handle , so it's best to think separately about your and the on which you function.Examples
Moving from Your Plane
Whatever you happen to have made your home, you will become aware of other and be influenced through your interactions with others on those .
Continuing existence on a particular naturally entails willingly meeting the range of ethical and creative demands associated with that . That means developing personal and social structures in accord with these.
You are not stuck on the where you happen to find yourself. (This follows a general principle that anyone can activate and operate any element within THEE—at least for a limited period of time.) But moving to another transiently is different from making your home there. Movement to a higher might be provoked by pressures from within or without. Motivation and willingness are needed to bear the disorientation and possible discomfort.
As it happens, moving to a higher seems to be a contemporary issue in much of the Western world. I have hypothesized that it defines the 21st Century Enlightenment.
- Start now at the base of worldly existence.
Originally posted: 14-Sep-2012