The fullness, the emptiness....

P

plurplex

Member
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hi everybody :)

Can anybody give me any insight into the difference between the fullness and the emptiness of God ?

I call it God, i mean Tao/Allah/Jah.... You know.
I refuse to believe that the major religions actually have 'different' Gods.

So why is there in the west, what seems celebration of the fullness of God, and in the east, what seems to be the opposite, the emptiness of God.

Please, state some opinions :)
 
In my experience you can find both approaches in the East and in the West.
 
Perhaps you mean the emptiness of abiding self hood?

Perhaps there is both: relative phenomena are expressions of the oneness (of unity).

What dauer probably said.

There, now I gotta lie down.

Snoopy.

PS and Hi :)
 
there is no emptiness of God in Eastern religions- unless you include buddhism into the mix, which is not really a religion but a philosophy of mind... as far as I know- and I know nothing about it, but the tao is the same... a way, a philosophy, etc...

Gods, traditionally, give... there is no taking away, except the taking away you do after meeting with God- the new self craves a little light and purity, and so you set about transforming your consciousness to become, erm, a better person- more like God...

I have found though, that a lot of people refer to buddhist nirvana as "realising emptiness", and this has come to mean "there is nothing there", yet this emptiness is not nothing, it is no-things, if that makes sense...

there is a word called sunyata, and it is often described as emptiness, it is a sanskrit word, and composed of sections... if you break the word down, it reads- sa- anya- ta... own/ones own (sa) without (anya)- he/you/yours (as suffix)... I take this then to mean... sunyata is...

his own without...

so, instead of emptiness, or nothing, the realisation of sunyata means to realise " your own, without"... without what?

without designations, descriptions, without form, without shape, without name, etc... you are still there... it is still "yours", but you are without all those dhatu, and beyond skandhas...

kind of, once all the chatter is gone, once all the judging is over... there is not nothing... you are still there... the world is still there... but it has changed... it hasn't become less... but more...

you should now tell us what you think, purplex!
 
thank you much for the replies people,
i must say though, that i still cannot settle my mind over the issue :)

your words about philosophy of the east helped me a bit F.king, but i still cannot determine the difference between the two different outlooks.

if i may, i present an analogy, coming from my own perspective, and feeling towards 'reality'...
- i feel love, and it feels full. for example when i am looking into loving eyes looking back at me. but also i feel another love, and it is like being clean. this cleanliness, for me, brings on the feeling of freshness, and an emptiness.
- in the first instance, i would say that this love is a human love. in the second, this is a love between everything.

like i said and maybe you see i am still quite intrigued and far from structuring this decently in my mind.
but it has been two days and i have been delaying a reply for want of a better insight.

your description of sunyata f.king, quite relates to this 'cleanliness'
 
thank you much for the replies people,
i must say though, that i still cannot settle my mind over the issue :)

your words about philosophy of the east helped me a bit F.king, but i still cannot determine the difference between the two different outlooks.

if i may, i present an analogy, coming from my own perspective, and feeling towards 'reality'...
- i feel love, and it feels full. for example when i am looking into loving eyes looking back at me. but also i feel another love, and it is like being clean. this cleanliness, for me, brings on the feeling of freshness, and an emptiness.
- in the first instance, i would say that this love is a human love. in the second, this is a love between everything.
-through either, i think the other, can be found

maybe you see i am still intrigued and far from structuring this decently in my mind.
but it has been two days and i have been delaying a reply for want of a better insight.

your description of sunyata f.king, quite relates to this 'cleanliness'
 
i would say the fullness and emptiness may be replaced with the idea of decentralisation and universality. if we don’t think of the infinite intellect as a person or an ‘it’ of any description, then all the masks of god are removed ~ leaving emptiness.

that emptiness is a vessel from whence all things arise or are, the transient and stillness are not separate things in the greater universal aspect. the transient world is equally as eternal as the emptiness, so we have to find a way to marry them without duality. we cannot - if i may just have emtiness or fullness.
 
plurplex said:
Hi everybody :)

Can anybody give me any insight into the difference between the fullness and the emptiness of God ?

I call it God, i mean Tao/Allah/Jah.... You know.
I refuse to believe that the major religions actually have 'different' Gods.

So why is there in the west, what seems celebration of the fullness of God, and in the east, what seems to be the opposite, the emptiness of God.

Please, state some opinions :)
Click to expand...

Hi Plurplex

I can only explain this from my perspective but as I see it the emptiness of God we know of as Tao is actually the state of pure conscious potential or no-thing. We cannot comprehend this state of pure conscious potential that manifests in six dimensional space. So no-thing can only be experienced for us as emptiness.

However, pure conscious potential can manifest as every-thing.and everything from the perspective of our three dimensional existence can only be considered as the fullness of God.

What makes it so difficult for me is contemplating that no-thing beyond time and space and every-thing or the manifestation of creation or lawful fractions of no-thing exist simultaneously in a vertical relationship we cannot experience but somehow we are aware of and define as "now."
 
_Z_ said:
i would say the fullness and emptiness may be replaced with the idea of decentralisation and universality
Click to expand...
yes thank you this makes alot of sense.
do i see a common train of thought beginning to run through this thread? :)

it reminds me of Thomas More's Utopia, in which he tries to describe a perfect society, much like Plato attempts in The Republic.
in the introduction of the book it explains how Utopia in greek translates to No-Place. much like you say nickA.

_Z_ said:
we cannot (marry them, over dualism) - if i may just have emptiness or fullness
Click to expand...
:)
"i know that i do not know" -Albert Einstein(i think)
maybe this view is from the view from the 'united', (non-dualistic), perspective of the subject. what do you think?

enjoying the forum, wise words..
 
transcendent and omnipresent ?

would i be right in describing the emptiness and the fullness as the transcendent and the omnipresent ?
 
Re: transcendent and omnipresent ?

plurplex said:
would i be right in describing the emptiness and the fullness as the transcendent and the omnipresent ?
Click to expand...

From a Catholic perspective, I suppose you could.

In the tradition there is apophatic (emptiness) and cataphatic (fullness) theology.

Thomas
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top