God is???

[OAT]

If I'm right, everyone will... one day.

Thanks, I look forward to it.

In all seriousness, I do find the experience of non-duality wonderful. BUT (and it's a big BUT)... it is also challenging. One confronts what some Pagans call the "shadow self." And the expansion of personal power that brings responsibility and the necessity of willingly meeting fear over and over.

I guess what I've found so far is that the nifty experiences come along with a good deal of self-discipline. What frees also reduces one's options. The same unity that results in peak ecstatic experiences can cause a good deal of pain as one viscerally feels the suffering around oneself. But, in connecting in to the Limitless, there is a strength that is found to face the pain.

I guess what I'm saying is that while I am a non-dualist, and experientially so, I am not fluffy about it. Non-duality means all the crap we usually reserve for the "Other"- dark and death, destruction and decay, all our negative emotions and thoughts, suffering and our potential to cause it... this is integrated and transmuted in the work of knowing and transforming the self. It is part of the knowing the temporary so we can become the Divine extension. And it is often unpleasant and challenging, even disturbing.

I am not qualified to comment on your experiences.

I know from my brief studies in Buddhism that there is neither being nor non-being... basically, there is no existence that is permanent- yes?

According to my own understanding, it just means that all existences are but an illusion.

Is the ontological reality postulated to be entirely illusory? But then, wouldn't that sort of qualify as a non-dualist position?

I'm trying to understand how cognitive non-duality could be maintained without ontological non-duality. I suppose it is in mistrusting one's experiences, or in seeing them as potentially misleading?

The ontological reality in my opinion is something outside our range of our experience. I tried to explain my speculation about it here. http://www.interfaith.org/forum/unique-teachings-in-buddhism-12598-3.html#post224495

 

[path_of_one]

According to my own understanding, it just means that all existences are but an illusion.

But if reality is unknowable, then existence, illusory though it may be, is all we are left with anyway. And then I wonder what is the use of pondering the question about any of it? (Except for mental stimulation?)

The ontological reality in my opinion is something outside our range of our experience. I tried to explain my speculation about it here.

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/unique-teachings-in-buddhism-12598-3.html#post224495

I don't think we experience reality as it is, but we can become more awake to the flow of that reality through us and our potential to consciously will our experienced, manifest reality.

Whatever the Ultimate is, It is. God Herself is. Whether or not our experience of Her is accurate is, to me, a non-question. More interesting to me are the effects of our experiences. It is, for me, a non-issue whether "God" exists in my own head or out there somewhere. The connection, whether internally or externally driven, leads to certain changes in myself, my perspective, my use of power, and my intention and action.

I guess for me, trying to distinguish between cognitive and ontological reality seems to be impossible to do accurately. Additionally, it seems pragmatically non-useful. What would be the point of separating one's experience and interpretation of it from reality itself? In a broad sense, I suppose I do this by viewing my experience as only one of many probabilities, likely tainted by varied inaccuracies, and so a best hypothesis of reality. I have a general worldview of open-endedness- that my current views will change as I get more experience and observation.

Nonetheless, this experience and the reality I perceive is what I have to work with. I can't choose intention, action, or energetic working based on a reality I can't experience at all. The positive changes in manifest reality (what is collectively experienced in physicality and the psyche) as a result of the non-dual reality I do experience indicate stuff is working... whether or not it is accurate or not. And following that, I conclude that accuracy is not so important anyway, and if indeed is impossible to attain, would be madness to attempt it and would simply waste my time.

Which brings me back to an underlying worldview that embraces paradox and unanswered questions, finding contentment in working with best approximations that seem to have some desirable effect.

 

[OAT]

Path of one, just go with what works for you. We all have to find what suits each of us.

 

[path_of_one]

Path of one, just go with what works for you. We all have to find what suits each of us.

Well, yes, of course. I hope you weren't offended by my musings. I'm not trying to convert anyone... just rambling about my questions and confusions. I'm always quite interested in how people think about things and how they reconcile issues of doctrine or ideology with practical action. It's an ongoing fascination of mine, and I found your view interesting and wondered how it all worked vis-a-vis daily living.

At any rate, thanks for the contributions you've made.

 

[OAT]

Well, yes, of course. I hope you weren't offended by my musings. I'm not trying to convert anyone... just rambling about my questions and confusions. I'm always quite interested in how people think about things and how they reconcile issues of doctrine or ideology with practical action. It's an ongoing fascination of mine, and I found your view interesting and wondered how it all worked vis-a-vis daily living.

At any rate, thanks for the contributions you've made.

No I was not offended by your musings nor did I feel that you were evangalising. No worries on that front.

I just felt that what I was saying might not be suitable/acceptable to you. And that is fine by me as we are all informed by different experiences and knowledge.

 

[Snoopy]

I wonder what is the use of pondering the question about any of it?

Exactly. Put down the ontology and step away!

s.

 

[seattlegal]

Yay!

Let's crack open a bottle of Kalama

s.

How's this Snoopy for the middle path regarding interdependent co-arising without speculating about the origins of the universe: "It's an interactive universe?"

 

[Snoopy]

"It's an interactive universe?"

That'll do nicely.

s.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

According to my own understanding, it just means that all existences are but an TEMPORARY.

The world is real . . . because ZERO is real.
Within the sphere of Zero that exists simultaneously everywhere untinged by 'varigated-ness' exists all cosmic phenomena.

The Different species of living entities allows for sensual delights afforded by the different bodies that the souls' conscious presence brings to animate the bodily form acquired for any given life time.

We get a future birth predicated upon the level of sophistication we cultivate during terrestrial Births as Humans [so says the ancient writs of the orient]

{ps: I stuck in italics}

The top of the ladder of consciousness allows a soul to precieve directly that "They are not this body, but spirit-Soul" ---searching for interpersonal exchanges with the ultimate Persona.

Humans and all life forms engage in the same 4-catagories of works/Acts: eat/sleep/mate/defend.

 

[shawn]

Humans and all life forms engage in the same 4-catagories of works/Acts: eat/sleep/mate/defend.

So working is what???? defending??
What then is play?
I think your categories are a bit rigid and simplistic.

 

[OAT]

[/FONT][/COLOR]

But if reality is unknowable, then existence, illusory though it may be, is all we are left with anyway. And then I wonder what is the use of pondering the question about any of it? (Except for mental stimulation?)

[/FONT][/COLOR]

And then I wonder what is the use of pondering the question about any of it? (Except for mental stimulation?)

Exactly. Put down the ontology and step away!

s.

I did not say that reality is unknowable, merely that it cannot be spoken of because it is without referent.

When I said we cannot experience it, I am using the word 'experience' in the conventional sense, namely the way we experience things while we are still unenlightened. By the very definition of enlightenment, the way an unenlightened person experiences things and the way an enlightened person "experiences" things are very different.

 

[taijasi]

I would say, bhakta, that those categories are fine for the root level of our being. We should, after all, be looking for about four basic `spokes.' So, the fight vs. flight (often associated with this center of awareness), the urge to sustain ourselves and reproduce - all these, as we know, are four very basic urges. Now move up.

Six `spokes' - and in the sacral center we will need to consider more extensions of our awareness with relation to the world around us ... and a greater self-awareness and self-understanding (model, conception of being) that result.

So on as we consider more complicated emotional states (not quite thought, but definitely urges which transcend the purely sexual) in the solar plexus ... and 10 `spokes' -

- then 12, true thoughtforms, and something quite worthy of the lateral extension toward and in-between our neighbors (represented by the outstretched arms) ...

... and the Divine Unit stirs, becomes Active, while 16 petals vibrate in evocation of the 96 (containing the pairs of opposites and the future seed of all harmonizing & equilibrating therein).

Interesting, here, that the initial 4 basic modes of conscious activity are trebled in the number of spokes of the 4th center (the heart), then quadrupled in the throat, while the brow center can be considered a factor of the sacral center (6 spokes, lower creativity) times the throat (16 spokes, higher creativity) - resulting in the 96-petalled lotus of the integrated personality ... guiding, directing and subjugating the lower self.

What does this leave? In the exoteric and simplest study, the 96 of lower, form-based experience raised by the power of ten, the perfect number (itself etched into our anatomy via the 10-spoked Manipura) ... to make the 960 petals of the 1000-petalled crown center. Then another study begins, concerning 12 additional petals within the crown ...

 

[Gatekeeper]

I did not say that reality is unknowable, merely that it cannot be spoken of because it is without referent.

I think that the only way to 'truly' know reality is to become reality and not just a part of. I don't think we can ever know (In full) the entire scope of all truth and/or the reality of all existence. I do however believe it possible to find peace, contentment, freedom, and happiness in life, or are these illusions as well?

When I said we cannot experience it, I am using the word 'experience' in the conventional sense, namely the way we experience things while we are still unenlightened. By the very definition of enlightenment, the way an unenlightened person experiences things and the way an enlightened person "experiences" things are very different.

Enlightened means what exactly? What does it mean to be enlightened, and how does one know when they have reached enlightenment? What if enlightenment is just another fallacious ideal and/or Illusion (Delusion) conjured up in the minds of those who think more highly of themselves than they ought?

 

[OAT]

I think that the only way to 'truly' know reality is to become reality and not just a part of. I don't think we can ever know (In full) the entire scope of all truth and/or the reality of all existence. I do however believe it possible to find peace, contentment, freedom, and happiness in life, or are these illusions as well?

Enlightened means what exactly? What does it mean to be enlightened, and how does one know when they have reached enlightenment? What if enlightenment is just another fallacious ideal and/or Illusion (Delusion) conjured up in the minds of those who think more highly of themselves than they ought?

I see a problem in that when I use certain terms, I was using it in the context of my understanding of Buddhism. This can be quite different from how it is understood by non-Buddhists. The word 'reality' is a good example. For me, it is not possible to speak becoming reality itself or being part of it because real reality from my Buddhist point is something ineffable.

As for finding peace etc in life, that would be futile from the Buddhist point of view.

What does 'enlightened' mean exactly? It means knowing reality as it is.

How does one know when they have reached enlighenment? When everything that can be known can be known by you.

What if enlightenment is just another fallacious ideal and/or Illusion (Delusion) conjured up in the minds of those who think more highly of themselves than they ought? If enlightenment is a fallacious ideal, then there is no hope for mankind or any sentient beings. But it is not from the Buddhist point of view. The last of the four noble truth is that there is a way to enlightenment. If it is a conjecture of the mind, then that is not real enlightenment but a delusion. In fact, the mind is no longer present in the enlightened state. (This last bit is highly controversial, but like all truths, it is hard to swallow.)

 

[Gatekeeper]

I see a problem in that when I use certain terms, I was using it in the context of my understanding of Buddhism. This can be quite different from how it is understood by non-Buddhists. The word 'reality' is a good example. For me, it is not possible to speak becoming reality itself or being part of it because real reality from my Buddhist point is something ineffable.

What is reality then?

As for finding peace etc in life, that would be futile from the Buddhist point of view.

A sense of peace and contentment is futile? How so? The pursuit of or the sense of?

What does 'enlightened' mean exactly? It means knowing reality as it is.

How can you know when you know reality?

How does one know when they have reached enlighenment? When everything that can be known can be known by you.

How can you know that you know all there is to know?

If enlightenment is a fallacious ideal, then there is no hope for mankind or any sentient beings.

Why hope when reality is what it is? It seems to me that hope can be futile as well. If there are forces in life beyond our control, and we are subject to such forces, why should we hope for anything? Why not just accept what is to come, and find comfort in that?

But it is not from the Buddhist point of view. The last of the four noble truth is that there is a way to enlightenment. If it is a conjecture of the mind, then that is not real enlightenment but a delusion. In fact, the mind is no longer present in the enlightened state. (This last bit is highly controversial, but like all truths, it is hard to swallow.)

I'm not sure I buy into the whole enlightenment concept. And yes, it would seem to me that that last bit would be quite contraversial.

 

[Gatekeeper]

[youtube]kVSfxzZOCdk[/youtube]

 

[shawn]

People make a lot of high sounding noises and speeches about enlightenment, yet it is the simplest thing.
It is remembering.
The "treasure" hid in our "vessel" is already far beyond what we all experience and "know" in our daily experience.
Rarely do we connect our thinking mind with this, which is our true self.
Normally we are stuck in the animal logic;
-Perception
-analysis
-action/reaction
-memory/conditioning
Our lives are important so we are busy living those lives, preserving those lives, perpetuating those lives, or just enjoying those lives.
It occupies all our waking time and thoughts.
But sometimes, due to trauma or something else, we gain an insight into something else entirely which is still a part of our lives, yet has been partitioned off, like a closed door which we never open and explore.
The enlightenment is when we actually go beyond that door, and remember who we are.
Normally, we forget, as we have totally identified with the "vessel" and the "treasure" is just a forgotten passenger.

 

[Amergin]

Who (What) is God to you? When you think about God, what do you visualize (If anything)? Even among the Christian populace, there are many differing views. Some believe God is a man like us, while others believe He is a spirit. What exactly does God consist of. Does He exist somewhere within existence itself, or does He exist outside of existence (If that's even possible) Maybe He's something else entirely to you?

God as the creator to me is the entire cosmos. It is the laws of physics in this universe. It is the laws in our universe in other universes. In addition, other dimensions. It includes the laws of physics of those other bubbles. The Laws may be different from those in our universe. Physicists theorize that there may be multiple universes in the billions that they call bubble universes, and other dimensions (11 is the latest estimate). To me all of this is "God".

Anthropomorphic Gods are gods made in the image of humans. They are usually made in the image of a very powerful warlord. This lord is the caricature of Bronze Age War Lords, in a time (Bronze Age) when powerful brutal men forged tribes into early civilisations. War Lords killed opponents. Anthropomorphic Gods kill opponents. War Lords are capricious. Anthropomorphic Gods are capricious. War Lords and Anthropomorphic gods are jealous, violent, vindictive, unmerciful, and given to homicidal rage attacks. I reject that God. I do not deny that such a God exists, but hope it is what it seems to be...an imaginary god with human characteristics. It makes no sense.

I read a short book on Hermetic philosophy years ago. In that book, God was referred as "The All". This view resonated with me in a profound way. I simply cannot NOT believe that god is absolutely everything now. Everything we see, touch, feel, smell and even all that is still unknown is a part of Gods entirety. I can't imagine Him existing as a small element of existence. To me it makes sense that He is both the creator and the created. He is both infinite and finite according to my view. We exist as a tiny part of Him, created from God's substance itself.

Anyway, I thought it might be interesting to share our personal views of God, and what we each view Him to consist of.

I disagree. We do not need to "create" gods based on our own human images. Those humanoid gods do not explain how our universe came into existence. They do not explain how we humans got to our present form by an unexplained magical act of conjuring with sacred words. We no longer need a scary god to control people and drive many to violent insanity.

God is the Cosmos including its many universes and 11 dimensions. It does not think or talk. It does shifts of energy from one state to another or one dimension to another. That is the real creation. Magic words not needed.

Amergin

 

[Amergin]

George Carlin was possibly America's greatest humourist and social critic of the last half of the 20th Century and first 8 years of the 21st. I never missed of his shows. I was sad about his death. I did agree with his assessment of religion and Christianity, although I would use milder language.

Religion is Mythology which some people believe to be true. People have a right to believe in mythology and superstition. That should be protected. The only restriction I would put on religion/Christianity/Islam is that believers should not have the right to coerce, to persecute, to discriminate, or to kill unbelievers which is a real fear in hyperreligious nations like the USA, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.

George spoke harshly against religious extremism, voicing the feelings of millions of American too afraid to speak such things openly. Criticising Christianity can be dangerous and lethal, or lead to loss of employment in spite of the Civil Rights Act.

America has lost a courageous spokesman for the restoration of freedom in Post-Democracy America.

Amergain

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

First a quick note on mythology. Mythology is our way of passing down through the generations the deep wisdom of life. Myths encapsulate more "truth" than a million of these ephemeral "facts" with which we litter our heads, and which bear little relevance of our real lives.

Second, the question "what is god" is the wrong question. We can't answer it anyway as god transcends all definition and so lies beyond our ability to comprehend. Jesus said "I am the way" meaning that God is for each of us a journey. God has meaning only in the way we lead our lives, in the love we share, in the peace we spread.

People have always tried to frame God in ways that they were familiar with. If they were war-like, God was a warrior; if they were patriarchal, God was the father and so on. Far better then to believe in a human like Jesus, Moses, Mohammed or the Buddha who were the closest thing to God on earth. Or not to imagine God at all.

For believers, God is not a fact that you can dispense with at will, but the whole course, fabric and meaning of our lives. Not a "what" but a "how".