When you invoke the name of God, when you remember him and think of him, know that you are not just entertaining an idea in the mind or an emotion in the heart. Your invocation makes God himself present. In thinking of God we intuit God himself.
God as the Absolute and the Infinite, as the perfect being, cannot be conceived of in the mind without being actually present; if it could, then the mental idea would not be of the perfect being since it lacks actuality.
The thought of God, its idea, cannot be different from God himself because God as the perfect being cannot have a representation, which is to say that all representations of God, his name or his image, must be aspects of God himself.
For God to have a representation that is not an aspect of God himself, that representation has to be a strictly human construct. The human mind, however, being in the realm of the finite and the relative cannot construct a mental idea of a perfect being without having an intuitive knowledge of what perfection is; neither a discursive knowledge of perfection is possible because it would require infinite steps in concept construction which itself presuppose an intuitive knowledge of infinity, again something inaccessible to the strictly human mind.
All attempts at attributing the existence of the idea of God to mere mental construction presuppose one or another aspect of God.
The idea is that there cannot be an idea of God without it being identical with God himself. This, of course, is obvious to one who is in constant remembrance of the One.
*The painting is by the mystic and philosopher Frithjof Schuon, the chief exponent of the Perennialist School.
NOEMAYA 
You like to play with fire. Good thing you’re fire-proof. Unlike all the images and names we invoke. All must fall away before entering, before the lightning. Cheers!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think I understand your point and argument. I do think that our minds do try to make representations of God. These misperceptions are false ideas about God. THAT we have an idea of God at all should let us know He is actual and present, but in such an instance our false idea of God is not identical with God himself, is it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is a delicate point and I think I kinda agree with you. I think our ideas of God are never perfectly identical with God but are aspects of God present to the believer. I do not think any idea can correspond to the full nature of God which is inexpressible. But they are somehow incarnation of an aspect of him. Like you can always look at a face through infinite number of perspectives but can never view the face in its totality without being in a perspective. And how can we say if someone’s idea of god is false if God knows that it is Him who is intended through the idea, however imperfect! This is a dilemma for me. Since there are people whose ideas of God don’t seem to be true, like these groups in the middle east as they kill in the name of god.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would peter that if God must be given an arbitrary sex that it be female. Neither male nor female apply in actuality, but the stereotype of female birthing is more appropriate than the image of the male father who controls his existent family with rules and wills and desires.
LikeLike
The mother too controls her family with rules and wills and desires. The best is not get caught up in connotations or read more into these words. Language is essentially inadequate when it comes to reality. But since we cannot work but in images I go with male God as I cannot relate to a female God, knowing in reality it is neither male or female.
Another issue with a birthing God is that I being nondualist don’t see brith or creation. For me there is only an undifferentiated It.
LikeLike
Killing in the name of God is false religion. All religion is false dogma. It only serve the purposes of social binding and political domination. Organized religion pretends to answer the deepest human questions to control and dominate more than to heal emotionally and provided succor for the oppressed.
LikeLike
Well, modern science is false dogma. It is dogma because people believe in it but none of them have actually intuitively experienced the truths of science, such as atoms, etc. It is false because science is an abstraction and not the experienced reality.
Religion actually does answer deepest human questions, but it does so if you practice it; the same way that physics can answer deep questions about the nature but only for those who become physicist, or in any vocation. The non-practitioner’s understanding of reality, whether in science or religion, is always false and dogmatic though it may appear otherwise.
Using the very sciences of today we must know that man is an essentially self-interested creature; if organized religions did not address deep human needs and concerns they would not have survived and lasted more than any other phenomena in the history of civilization.
Here I side the Emile Durkheim the French sociologist and psychologist when he says “If an institution is not based on the nature of things it will encounter a resistance in nature which destroys it. The very existence of religions assures us that they hold to Reality and express it.”
If we fail to understand religion it is only because we failed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I understood your reasoning. Tomaj. I have more faith in the ability of language to enlighten and teach than you do. All is in the terminology. The words only approximate the thought.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I too do believe in that ability, after all that is why we write. But I believe language is too be transcended at the end. It is like a ladder that is necessary for climbing but itself only a means. Reality is nonconceptual and non-linguistic. Language is like a finger pointing at the moon; we must not look at the finer but the moon. But unfortunately almost all the intellectual quarrel in the world is not about reality itself but the choice of language.
LikeLike