Define God

[Ajnadurga]

Every single moment, every experience, emotion and being is god, god is the whole of what we are unable to comprehend as humans, we try

[Micromegas]

...

Edited February 13, 2017 by Micromegas
removed

[mysubtleascention]

 

 

 

 sophisticated -
 relationship prison
 .. times

 

 addict reason !

 

 

 

 

[Mapacho]

On 10/30/2016 at 1:00 PM, Micromegas said:

... This maybe can finish my point. To transform from human to animal requires that the awareness enter temporarily the other half of existence where there is no ability to symbolise or comprehend anything. One becomes un-unified, goes into the other half that cannot be reconciled with anything, where everything is literally in pieces.

 

paragraphs man!

 

I see a very capable intellect, yet find countless layers of concepts in your writing that do little to simplify and alot to complexify, categorise and define a very specific form of god that you can argue against and call less than absolute.  Where does this other half idea come from?  Or the certainty you have that within this idea nothing is unified.  Everywhere I look, the more aware I become, the more I see interdependence and dependent arising, this arising, that becoming, and thus a dissolution of separation.  My sacred experiences that have dissolved boundaries revealing glimpses that we are god, and have forgotten in this illusion of form, that god is all and yet none, are nothing to do with cultural domination.

 

I think you have fallen down a rabbit hole of contradictions, and yet I see some truths weaved throughout.  

 

Thinking is one vastly overused aspect of being able to understand god.  You speak of believing everything without believing anything...sorry to be frank but this is conceptual nonsense.  One cannot have both at the same time.  Oscillalting between it is simply confusion.  What is a belief?  It is a conditioned appropriation of a whole bunch of subjective stuff, you speak of foxes and crows, their perception is limited by their DNA and the conditions that arise, yet is there not a sameness, a spirit that is shared? It is this that shamans dissolve into, in order to ride the consciousness of animals.  It is this that they step into and allow plants to step into them to do work.

 

There are certainly people who simply repeat culturally dominant forms, often because they feel a need to belong, and something I can respect is your efforts to forge somewhere where nothing belongs.  

 

Concepts create dualism, and dualism is inherently lacking an ability to experience the whole picture.  To begin to understand god/enlightenment/insert label here it is somewhere to start, but not somewhere to stay.  They are just tools to progress.  It is possible to fully realise the truth in this life, so instead of creating mind walls, use concepts to learn to step out of the mind, for there are two clear limitations, our mind, and our body.  The senses and the processing of the senses.  Spirituality in all of its guises, is development of letting go of all of this to see what remains, what is unchanged by what is clearly limited.  

 

I find mooji an eloquent arbiter of this:

 

 

Nothing has to be wrong for the mind to launch an attack.

Nothing has to be wrong for it to make up

big stories out of nothing actually.

There only has to be a seed of a thought given attention,

‘Hmm, there's still some separation…?’

And the mind says, ‘You see? I’ve been trying to tell you!’

and there you go, sailing off down the road

with the unstable and unreliable mind.

It can happen just like this.

The mind doesn’t need any substance or truth.

You can give him anything.

He is like a goat—he eats anything.

And we are quick to believe anything it says.

Our life is chiefly made up of thoughts, interpretations

—and wrong interpretations also, based upon fear, desire and rejection.

This is why I say: pay attention to the sense of being—the Self.

Be one with the Self, rather than trying to

pick and choose through the innumerable

thoughts and sensations that mind tends to see

—which one is true and which is false.

You can spend lifetimes doing this

and you will never come to the end of it.

As soon as you finish pruning this tree,

new leaves are coming.

So don’t waste time cleaning up the mind.

Stay as the Self.

As you train your attention and mind to stay as the Self,

the space in which the mind

and person lives vanishes.

Thus you come to experience a completeness,

a contentment in just resting in and as the Self.

And when you are content, the interest will fall away

from these other rooms and their contents.

The feeling of separation, or even union,

all of this becomes redundant as thoughts

—unnecessary.

You simply are.

There is a unity in that.

There is a harmony in this.

And where no doubts come,

there is even no need for union or separation.

You experience real unity beyond even the concept of unity.

This is your natural state.

~ Mooji

God is the natural state.  Everything is an expression of the natural state, and thus it is empty of any separation.  There is no observer and object anymore.  We are all driven by desire that emerges in countless ways, which steers us to contemplate even this, right here, right now.  We seek.  Why?  Because we are not truly content, and while there is an observer this will continue to be the case as to observe one must look from somewhere.  The only way to experience the truth that I can see on this journey so far is to use this desire to end these limitations, kind of like crawling back up the ropes that we are hanging on by learning to let go of absolutely everything.  People have done it, jesus, buddha, innumerable others, and they become windows for that truth.  If we turn away from this it is clear there is only different forms suffering be it transitory happiness or pain, they cannot exist without eachother, enter samsara and the veil of desire and aversion.  

 

The tantalising "it" is what the words and concepts can dance around but never lead to.  But reaching "it' starts with concepts by necessity.  Such is the essence of all true spiritual paths no matter their labels.  Such is why western science which seeks to constantly define and separate will never ever encompass such a truth.  Spirituality is science in its truest sense as both seek to understand the truth.  One looks at what can be confined to the mind, one looks beyond.  

 

Mooji is but one whom I appreciate and I am cautious not to idolise, however I feel this is appropriate here in the context.

Don’t try to learn what I'm telling you so much.

Follow the pointings and you will see.

Discover Home first and then grow from Home.

Don’t try and follow and learn with your head. 

Whatever you merely learn with your head will not stay with you

—it will collapse under stress. It will run away.

Mere mental or intellectual conviction 

will not be available when you feel the pressures of egoic life.

It’s like the friends who promise to stay with you,

but in the moment of need they are gone.

Like this, what you learn with your head won’t stay with you.

But what you have seen in your heart, 

that will never leave you.

In Satsang seeing and being are One.

~ Mooji

 

Edited November 8, 2016 by Mapacho

[Mapacho]

On 10/27/2016 at 8:34 PM, Micromegas said:

My view for the time being is that the idea of experiencing nonduality itself is a construct, just like God.

 

God is a concept. God exists in the world of reason. There is something beyond reason, and beyond reasoning about unification of duality, and beyond divinity itself, because these are merely symbols that have been provided true life by attention of the human reason/awareness. God exists, but it's not the end point it's only half of the picture.

 

I agree, I believe it is entirely appropriate to limit God to 'nonduality' - the religious experience of the unified reason as you suggest; enlightenment exists in this field as well. Further afield from this is the fundamental incomprehensibility of the other half of the universe which God floats in like an island.

 

The true nature of the universe cannot be reconciled into nonduality; all the pairs we create in order to unify are not true pairs, they are constructs that exist in only one half of the universe. For me, nonduality and 'god' are only one half of the universe, the part that can be comprehended. My definition of God, therefore, is that it exists but that it does not and cannot encompass all of existence in any of its definitions; cultural/perceptual consensus activates and communes with true Gods that can be fully engaged but are nonetheless not all of what exists.

 

God encompasses true worlds, but the totality of the universe is far beyond God. Yes, others can enlarge the definition of God, make the argument one of semantics, or extol their personal experience of communion - but I would contend that they are still within only one half of all that exists.

 

As soon as we have revelations, we are immediately constrained. God is within the ambit of constraint. Necessary, in fact, for the purpose of meaning. But there is more. There is an area of the universe that means nothing and intends nothing but which is, paradoxically, something. But it is not God.

 

I missed this.

 

Of course it is a concept. It will remain a concept as do all concepts, until they are experienced. If the born, grown and conditioned exists, then also must the unborn, ungrown and unconditioned exist.

 

This is the logical fallacy you stumble on.  God is a concept.  That does not mean God exists only within reason by the very definition that God can encompass that which is beyond the mind and thus reason.  Thus even the concept of god can also exist beyond reason as we have defined it as such within our use of reason.

 

If nonduality is half of a picture...it is no longer nondual. It defines that there ceases to be a reference point. Look that that...conceptual reasoning just broke as it cannot go there.  This age old fact has been recognised for thousands of years and waxed lyrical about in countless texts.

 

The suttas state nonduality as both perception and non perception, and it is recognised that this is concept defining the direct experience of that which is beyond reason.

 

So, I would simply say that your definition of God and nonduality are conceptually flawed.

 

As soon as we have revelations within the boundaries of the mind, yes we are immediately constrained.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 8, 2016 by Mapacho

[Micromegas]

...

Edited February 13, 2017 by Micromegas
removed

[Micromegas]

...

Edited February 13, 2017 by Micromegas
removed

[Mapacho]

@Micromegas I am in the midst of exams and the extent of your reply will surely take me some mindful contemplation so firstly, thanks for taking the time and effort to reply and I will read and reply soon.  I will add that I find this discussion fantastic and I appreciate the opportunity to open myself to your interpretations.  

[sagiXsagi]

Hi again! I am here to just note I didnt leave the conversation, it just became too dense of meanings for me to take the time the posts deserved. 

Also I am openminded, I say for me, but a radical atheist. So I might not understand or have the knowledge to understand what you are about when you are analysing stuff about the "other", the "god" . 

 

Why not make it simpler... An awesome quote from Micromegas became my signature.. Whata a great saying!!! 

 

There is an area of the universe that means nothing

and intends nothing but which is, paradoxically, something.

But it is not God

 

my take is that things are simples, and this phrase talks about everything, including God. 

actually this phrase could well be an atheist quote

 

But I will come back to read all posts again... 

 

[Mapacho]

@sagiXsagi I also appreciate simple. It is the peak of wisdom.  Sometimes though, the mind will not accept simple.  When I muster the time I will go through Micro's post above, but yours is easier to work with.

Just to provoke some thought for you.  Shiva, the hindu and yogic deity, prominent in yogic teachings, means exactly "that which is not".  This means purely, absence of intent, absence of meaning, and thus paradoxically, something, hence Shiva.

In yogic teachings, deities are not beings that have will or proclivities or personalities, they are representations of a particular type or form of energy.  They do not have personalities, however people may reflect the qualities of these forms of energy which can give way to superimposing personalities on such deities.  Which is confusing.  The deity is the form of a person, expressing the impersonal nature of the universe and thus provide a means to working with it, such as the paradox that Micromegas speaks of.

Deities in Mahayana Buddhism follow a similar line of meaning and are considered ultimately an illusion, however they provide specific functions of encompassing and providing a focal point for experiences that become difficult and time consuming to outline via traditionally lingual expression.  The deities encompass the whole energy form itself and thus inherently tailor to the individual's level of understanding and thus provide a platform for developing insight.  For example, Annalakshmi, the hindu goddess of food is used to being gratitude to the food we receive on a basic level and if we go deeper she embodies that all food is a form of life and organic is balanced upon inorganic tying into the interdependence of all things etc.

Here is another example: a mahayana goddess Amithaba is a focal point for the awareness of the emptiness of form and "she" can be experienced by the mind as a means of understanding and dissolving current conceptual boundaries.  Those boundaries are at different stages for everyone but if one learns to use her in practice she will work in doing that regardless.  Note that her gender is part of form and that emptiness of form is by nature devoid of gender.  The surface is not what it seems, and in itself is a teaching. 

Apt for this quote is the teacher Ramana Maharshi, who expresses that exactly what micromegas has quoted is the residual "Self", the godhood.  He talks of it as the screen upon which a movie plays.  The images come and go, their impermanence clear as day, our mistaken identity as attaching to these impermanent moments that come and go.  He talks of our true nature being the screen, never coming or going, to which nothing sticks.

I might clarify that I do not accept deities as individuals in any true sense.  I now look at the worship of god as a tool for revering the true nature of all that  is and isn't, and us as a part of that inherently have access to it.  It is a tool to undercut the conditioned foundations of myself.  Just as people once thought the sun revolved around the earth we can use it to shed our self-importance which seems to cause so much suffering.

It is unnecessary to approach spirituality using the term or idea of god, but many do use the term for this purpose, and it can be very useful and freeing to subdue the belief that oneself is the most important, which is why I believe it to be popular.  Note jesus's phrase referring to the king of hell (selfishness) or serve in heaven (selflessness).  Heaven can be seen as the freedom from the confines of individuality.  The dude was onto it haha.  There is no room for ego in heaven, for individual conditioned self.  heaven can be replaced with nibbana of buddhism and mean the same thing.  I assume that this is the essence of many spiritual leaders, be they saints, or yogis, or buddhas, or jesus, or mohammed, or shamans etc.  I think that many of those who have had sudden or great insight and tried to teach the way used the concept of god to guide people, but people can only see as far as their ignorance lets them, thus giving rise to all of the foolish and destructive occurrences around the religions that formed to hold the concept of god.  

This brings me to consider our scientific explorations and the materialism that Dawkins and others are famous for.  Every phenomena that exists can be traced back to a big bang, a point where everything that seems separate now, was in one place at one time.  What existed before is a question no scientist has answered effectively.  No actual beginning is evident, and interestingly no end, though heat death of the universe is a hypothesis amongst many.  Theories abound.  What can be seen is that the current separation of matter and its manifestation of space, requires time to exist.  Time only exists because of a reference point, being able to have space between one point and another.  So there was a unity at this point of the big bang where nothing and something existed simultaneously without space or time entering the picture.  And by that recognition that it is outside of time, it must exist right now. Boom, paradox.  What is fascinating to me is spiritual teachings that express this, before there was scientific knowledge of the big bang.  Spiritual teachings often express that without our senses receiving information from an external source, our conditioned nature can be dissolved, thus time subjectively ceases to exist.  If we experienced this directly, experienced timelessness we would revert to experiencing the ground of the universe, from which the big bang occurred.  Where people stick is the question, what experiences that state? What is awareness dependent upon?  Can awareness be without a reference point, if there is no "me" anymore?  Materialism says no which is a belief just as baseless as theism. Spirituality says find out.  

For me, God, is this.  That at the heart of us, is this infinite state.  Everything springs from this state.  Thus God is everything, and yet nothing. It fits too many spiritual teachings and scientific theories for me to discount it as a distinct possibility.  The term god is not necessary to define this but I find it useful, and I would say that saying this is not God is going to be bound up on subjective conditions placed upon the concept of God.  Are those subjective conditions useful.  Where do they come from?

So in essence, I appreciate the quote, but to me saying it is definitively not god, doesn't make sense.  
 

Edited November 24, 2016 by Mapacho
typos

[Ajnadurga]

During all the headscratching i have done reading through
Mahayana Buddhist texts and countless other culture comparisons, kundalini yoga, shamanic studies including the terabada buddhist shamans, it seems to me the deities are beings or energy representations from higher or other dimensional planes above ours the 3rd, usually being the case...

Which we in turn give our energy away too through worship and praise, these deities may not always be as they seem and may have ulterior motives...as Terence implied these things are malarkey and have been repeated through tradition creating culture which we rely heavily upon for our comfort and peace of mind, our security blanket, through all the dimensions there are different deities mentioned at different levels, all with different intentions, the main game seems to be energy though and sourcing that from lower dimensional beings prolonging their existence...

Nothing new when you look at our own hierarchy here we are a reflection of the divine, but through it all i came across a description of a place much like shangri-la, a place of eternal nirvana, our resting place between lives and other dimensional existences, we return to this source, and if there is in fact this source that we all carry a spark of inside of us, some more than others, buddah, jesus, etc or should i say some are more aware of it and in tune with it.

Then it would seem to me we are all of the same source and that source always seems to be called or described as God, hence in turn we all embody 'God' as it is what animates us and drives our will in all forms, it is the flame inside our very being and essence and echoes through eternity into all forms and all moments... just my two cents

Some very interesting perspectives and bodies of information here, does have me scratching my head further yet haha.

[bardo]

edit

Edited May 30, 2017 by bardo
my opinion/perspective has changed

[Micromegas]

...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 14, 2017 by Micromegas
removed

[immanuel]

As it was mentioned in this context I agree and feel that spirituality is a true form of science.. As such that to me really is the only method one can use to develop an awareness and knowing of the soul. Beyond our identification a consciousness does exist which is naturally greater than our human awareness, a 'higher self', a seperate aspect of our soul in certain type of unity.

 

The reason I mention this is to follow on, in that one should use an intention to cultivate a high attractor with the very utmost highest origins of their own soul - from original source. And that makes sense to me as a reliable method.

for a true god-realisation and acts as a bypass to essentially what is a fallen state of being.

 

Edited October 27, 2017 by manu

[Micromegas]

 

...

 

 

 

Edited February 13, 2017 by Micromegas
removed

[Micromegas]

Not that it really matters to anyone but me, but for the sake of transparency (and my own idiosyncrasies!) I removed all of my content from this thread. It has come to light from further research that much of what I wrote, while still being of value (to me at least) in many of its constituents parts, was synthesized in an awkward framework and one that, moreover, had a slightly negative element, which was the result of and then clung to me as a sort of flippant cynicism about 'meaning', which I am now sloughing off. It was important for me to put it down on paper at that point due to what I was working on, but it doesn't adequately represent the overall direction of my line of thinking, and as I am reworking some of the material in a more rigorous and holistic fashion I have chosen to remove it from here.

 

It really buggers up a thread to remove content and it's not something I generally do, so apologies for that, but in this case it is imperative for me that I remove something that appears fixed in my thinking from a process that is in motion.

[ThunderIdeal]

You deserve to be spanked.

 

Report yourself to the mods for spanking.  EG is your God now.

Edited February 14, 2017 by ThunderIdeal

[-RC-]

Sat Nam

[☽Ţ ҉ĥϋηϠ₡яღ☯ॐ€ðяئॐ♡Pϟiℓℴϟℴ]

 

[mysubtleascention]

 

 

 

BOTH.worlds Bonus Click

 

 

 

[Martyh64]

The all

[Insequent]

Who or what is God (or a god)?  The question of God is a common one, for at least as long a time as history has been recorded, and probably then some. If anyone has ever had the truth of it, how would we know?. Maybe there's a clue in this. Maybe there's a reason the answer eludes us.

 

It is possible Blake was considering this when he wrote,

“If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite.

For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern.”   - The Marriage of Heaven and Hell

 

Perhaps we cannot answer this because we need to tend to some housework and answer some more important questions before we can look at this one. Perhaps it's a bit like expecting to be able to know what it feels like to run before we have learned what it feels like like to walk.

 

(Maybe we should ask some advice of The Shroom....)

 

"God exists or God does not exist. Leave it for us. Your task is to learn how to live peacefully."  Dalai Lama.

 

 

[freakazoid]

I really like this thread and have dared not approach such a huge topic that peeps can hold their beliefs so cherished that even uttering a wrong.....but in the mood for a go at it right this minute so what was I saying?

 

 

define God      Computers in 15 years

 

 

us now

Edited June 23, 2017 by freakazoid
Remembered it

[freakazoid]

 

 

And sometimes lately when I think about God and the Devil I kinda click more and more into quantum physics mode so both opposing views are correct/incorrect like it's the one and the zero and I think up stuff that ends up sounding a little flippant in a discussion of such magnitude but I'm also realizing that beliefs are as individual as fingerprints.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God and the Devil are real and don't exist/just made up, at the same time

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

so then when I'm at a bar with a priest, a satanist and an atheist things get real interesting cos everyone's right and wrong

 

 

 

 

 

 

[freakazoid]

I am

 

 

 

 

 

the great "I am"

 

 

 

 

 

 

not sure many different religious texts refer to him in this manner, might be an interesting search..

 

 

 

 

but that can be a pretty "hot" answer at, say, a psych evaluation